China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

China Requires Full Coverage of Lawyer's Defense in Criminal Cases

Wed, 23 Nov 2022
Categories: China Legal Trends

Full coverage of lawyer’s defense in criminal cases means that the government and the judicial authorities must ensure that criminal suspects have their own lawyers from the point on which they are allowed by the law to entrust defense lawyers.

On 12 Oct. 2012, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC), the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP), the Ministry of Public Security, and the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) issued the “Opinions on Further Deepening the Pilot Program of Full Coverage of Lawyer’s Defense in Criminal Cases” (hereinafter the “Opinions”, 关于进一步深化刑事案件律师辩护全覆盖试点工作的意见).

The Opinions stipulates that the government and judicial authorities must provide defense lawyers for the criminal suspects without lawyers immediately during the period of examination and prosecution by procuratorates.

Criminal proceedings in China include three stages: the investigation stage by public security organs, the examination and prosecution stage by procuratorates, and the trial stage by courts.

In October 2017 and December 2018, the SPC and the MOJ respectively issued policies to provide lawyers for defendants without lawyers at the trial stage.

This policy further proposes that procuratorates should also provide lawyers for the criminal suspects at the stage of examination and prosecution.

The lawyers provided by the government and judicial authorities are mainly those designated by legal aid agencies and duty lawyers stationed at judicial authorities.

 

 

Cover Photo by ce xu on Unsplash

 

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

You might also like

PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal, Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments

Recent Australian case law clarifies that the “double interest” mechanism in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) monetary judgments functions as a compensatory post-judgment interest framework rather than an unenforceable penalty. This consolidates Australia’s position as a highly attractive and creditor-friendly forum for enforcing Chinese judgments. See Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58 (6 February 2024), Fu v Pang [2025] VSC 597 (16 September 2025)

IOMed Settles First Case, Resolving China-Singapore Maritime Dispute

The newly established International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) has successfully resolved its inaugural case—a maritime charter dispute between Chinese and Singaporean parties—marking a major milestone for the world’s first government-backed global mediation body.