(Zhenxiong, Yunnan – June 27, 2024) It is reported that Chang Hao, a rural preacher in Zhenxiong, Yunnan, was dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment of the Zhenxiong Court on the “provocations and causing trouble” case. He believed that the judgment was unclear in facts, insufficient in evidence, wrong in the application of law, and with serious procedural violations. On May 20, 2024, he appealed to the Intermediate People’s Court of Zhaotong City, Yunnan Province, requesting the second-instance court to make a fair judgment.
On May 14, 2024, the Zhenxiong County People’s Court made a first-instance criminal judgment on the case of Chang Hao being accused of “provocations and causing trouble”. Chang Hao received the judgment notice on the same day. The Zhenxiong Court sentenced Chang Hao to one year and one month in prison. Chang Hao was arrested on April 14, 2023, and it was exactly one year and one month on that day. Therefore, after the verdict was announced, Chang Hao immediately walked out of the court with his family and church brothers and sisters, and then filed an appeal through his attorney.
The appeal request is to revoke the criminal judgment of (2023) Yun 0627 Xin Chu No.1151 (Criminal First Instance No. 1151) made by the Zhenxiong County People’s Court on May 14, 2024, and to change the appellant’s judgement to not guilty in accordance with the law.
The facts and reasons put forward by Chang Hao are as follows:
- The facts determined by the first-instance trial were unclear, the evidence was insufficient, and the application of the law was wrong.
(i) The evidence at the first instance could not prove that the appellant had subjective criminal intent. The first instance judgment determined that the appellant “had grievances with the country and society due to physical disability, failures of livestock farming, etc.” This is obviously a judgement that lacks logic and is not supported by evidence. First of all, the appellant’s physical disability was caused by an accident more than 20 years ago, and the appellant, thanks to his belief in Christ, had long since overcome the frustrations caused by physical disability. The so-called “pig farming failure” was also many years ago. Why would the appellant vent his dissatisfaction on the Internet for these things many years later in 2022 and 2023? The appellant had not agreed with this during the trial. In addition, in the interrogation records, the appellant repeatedly said that he loved this country and hoped that the country would become better. It is normal for a society to have different voices and for ordinary people to have different opinions. If a society only sings praises in one voice, it would be unhealthy. ” Criticism is a deep and profound way to be patriotic.” Therefore, the appellant’s online posts did not contain any criminal intent.
(ii) The existing evidence cannot prove that the appellant’s online posts are harmful under the criminal law. According to the appellant’s own accounts and the evidence in this case, the appellant did not insult others. The evidence in the first instance did not prove that the appellant’s behavior “undermined social order” and “caused adverse social impact”. The so-called destruction of social order and adverse social impact should be specific and obvious, not abstract and imaginary. “Twitter” is a foreign social media that is not visible to ordinary people in China, and the influence of “Twitter” posts in China is limited. In short, the evidence in this case cannot prove that the appellant’s behavior violated Article 293, paragraph 1, item (2) of the Criminal Law and Article 3, item (1) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Provoking Trouble.
(iii) The key evidence of this case, “electronic data”, was not presented in court. The prosecution’s “Indictment” clearly states that there is “electronic data” evidence, but in the “evidence presentation and cross-examination” phase of the first instance trial, the prosecutor did not present the “electronic data” evidence, but instead presented “electronic data inspection records”, “electronic data extraction fixed list”, “Twitter screenshots” and “explanatory notes on electronic data”. This does not comply with the law.
The inspection records and electronic data are different types of evidence stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Law. Electronic data refers to objective data including text, graphic symbols, numbers, letters, audio-visual materials, etc. formed by electronic technical means such as computer applications, communications and modern management technologies. The data is formed in the process of the case, stored, processed and transmitted in digital form, and can prove the facts of the case. It needs to use computers, mobile phones and other electronic devices to form the objective data such as numbers, text, symbols, pictures, sounds, images, etc. to show and prove the facts of the case. It belongs to the statutory evidence types expressly stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Law, and is essentially different from traditional tangible evidence such as physical evidence and documentary evidence. Therefore, the “Twitter screenshots” in this case are obviously not electronic data, do not have the properties and probative force of evidence, and cannot be used as evidence.
In addition, according to Article 8 of the 2016 Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Collection, Extraction, Review and Judgment of Electronic Data in Criminal Cases issued by the Supreme Court and Supreme Procuratorate: “When collecting and extracting electronic data, if the original storage medium of the electronic data can be seized, the original storage medium shall be seized and sealed, and a record shall be made to detail the sealing status of the original storage medium. When sealing the original storage medium of electronic data, it shall be ensured that the electronic data cannot be added, deleted or modified without disturbing the sealed status of the data. Photos of the sealed original storage medium shall be taken before and after sealing to clearly reflect the status of the seal or the place where the seal is posted. When sealing storage media with wireless communication functions such as mobile phones, measures such as signal shielding, signal blocking or power cut-off shall be taken.” According to the evidence materials in this case, the investigation agency seized and sealed the original storage medium mobile phone in accordance with the law and regulations, and nor did it keep a record. This is a serious illegal evidence collection behavior.
(iv) Error in application of law. The appellant’s behavior did not violate Article 293, paragraph 1, item (3) of the Criminal Law and Article 3, item (1) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Provoking Trouble, and did not constitute provocations and causing trouble.
2. The first instance court violated the principle of open trial.
The “case of provocations and causing trouble” was not heard in public according to Article 188 of the Criminal Procedure Law. ” As a case of provocations and causing trouble, this case does not belong to the case of involving state secrets or personal privacy, nor does it involve commercial secrets. The trial should be conducted in public in accordance with the law. However, the collegial panel of the Zhenxiong County People’s Court decided not to hear the case in public on the grounds that it “involved state secrets”, which was a blatant violation of the principle of open trial.
The first instance court actually defined Chang Hao’s case of provocations and causing troulbe as involving state secrets based on a red-letterhead document issued by the Zhenxiong County Public Security Bureau during the investigation stage. The public prosecution agency did not submit this “red-headed document” as evidence. This is ridiculous! The practice of the first instance court is obviously inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the “Law of the People’s Republic of China on Guarding State Secrets” on state secrets. This is a blatant misinterpretation of the law! Even if the red-headed document of the Zhenxiong County Public Security Bureau is legitimate, according to its content, its effectiveness is only limited to the investigation stage of the case, and cannot be applied to the case review and prosecution stage and trial stage at all.
According to Article 238 of the Criminal Procedure Law, if the trial of the first-instance people’s court violates the provisions of this law on public trial, it shall rule to revoke the original judgment and send it back to the original people’s court for retrial.
3. There are many procedural violations in this case, which seriously affect the fairness of case handling.
The investigation agency illegally seized items unrelated to the case. The case officers of the investigation agency went to the appellant’s home to search without showing a search warrant. They seized the appellant’s two mobile phones and tablet computer. In summary, the first-instance judgment of the appellant’s case of provocations and causing trouble was unclear in facts, insufficient in evidence, wrong in the application of law, and serious in procedural violations. It is sincerely requested that the second-instance court make a fair judgment.