| The judicial practice in the four years since the implementation of the revised Criminal Procedure Law on January 1, 2013 has highlighted the dilemma faced by courts in the application of Article 152 of the Law. This paper reviews 73 sample cases selected from China Judicial Verdicts Website between 2013 and 2016 and shows a series of practical challenges faced by courts relating to use of surveillance evidence. To balance the value of investigation efficiency and that of civil rights protection, it is necessary to establish a series of institutions on the use of surveillance evidence. The defense lawyers should have the right to know such evidence before the trial and the chance to cross-examine it. Original evidence should be used, and if the judge wants to use hearsay evidence or alternative format of surveillance evidence, they should comply with the procedure of authentication of physical evidence. Judges can investigate such evidence out of court, but in doing so, should guarantee the right of the defendant to fair trial. And, in order to protect the interests of methods and process of investigative surveillance, national security and personal safety of related persons, policy makers can design some value-balanced procedures to use surveillance evidence, for example, to use alternative format of evidence, keep sources of evidence as confidential and establish the institution of special lawyer to cross-examine evidence. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号