Senior judges from Australia and Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's
Court recently conducted a court trial on the same case. The result
of the trial was full of suspense due to the difference between two
countries' social and legal systems. Although it was only a
demonstration, it fully displayed the characteristics of the two
countries.
The Case: Hand Model Claimed 100,000 Yuan for Her Hand Injured
by a Dog
On
August 24, 2001, the left hand of the hand model Zhang Lanlan
(assumed name) was bitten by a dog belonging to Liu Yu (assumed
name). She sought compensation from Liu because she could not
fulfill two contracts due to her injured hand. Since the two sides
failed to reach agreement, Zhang filed a lawsuit seeking 102,406
yuan (US$12,368), which included 2,406 yuan (US$291) for medical
and transportation fees; 80,000 yuan (US$9,662) for economic loss
from the two unfulfilled contracts and 20,000 yuan (US$2,416) for
emotional damage. The case caused a public sensation.
Comparison of the Procedure
Chinese Side
After a brief opening ceremony, the trial started at 9:45 am in the
second civil court of Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court. Li
Tao, the presiding judge, dressed in the normal Chinese judge's
military-style uniform, announced the opening of the session.
Firstly, an assessor of the collegiate bench called the plaintiff,
Zhang Lanlan, to state her reason for filing the lawsuit, which was
followed by a statement from her lawyer. The assessor then called
the defendant, Liu Yu, to make her own statement. According to the
defendant, the plaintiff Zhang Lanlan took the initiative in
approaching the dog and should be responsible for the accidental
injury she suffered. The defense lawyer argued that, despite the
importance of her hands to her career, the plaintiff had failed to
insure them and did not treat her hands seriously. Hence, the
defendant should not have to bear the responsibility for her
injury.
Their words immediately created a tense atmosphere in the court.
The judge urged the two sides to calm down. The plaintiff showed
the picture of her wounded hand. A member of the security staff of
the community then gave evidence that he had found the plaintiff's
hand was bitten by the dog and was bleeding. He was followed by an
appraiser who confirmed that the hand might have permanent scars,
which mean the end of the plaintiff's career.
However, the defendant firmly believed that it was the first time
for the appraiser to make such an appraisal of the hand injury, and
lawyers on both sides immediately became locked in a heated debate
on this issue.
After one-and-a-half hour trial, the presiding judge made the final
decision that the defendant Liu Yu should pay Zhang Lanlan 84, 000
yuan (US$10,145).
Australian Side
At
1 pm, the Australian judge opened the trial. The background had
changed into the badge of the Commonwealth of Australia. Only the
presiding judge appeared on the bench. The plaintiff and the
defendant did not appear in court, as it is customary in Australia
for the plaintiff and the defendant in civil suits to fully entrust
their lawyers to argue the case for them. They could not defend
themselves directly in court. The tone of the trial procedures
appeared less serious than in the Chinese court. The presiding
judge casually changed his sitting posture, and could even play
with his glasses while he was listening to the statements from the
lawyers. They, in turn, were very confident and strolled around the
well of the court. When the heated debate between the two sides was
finished, the presiding judge made the decision after the unanimous
judgment of the jury that the defendant should pay the plaintiff
80,000 yuan (US$9,677) for her economic losses and 20,000 yuan
(US$2,419) for mental suffering.
Interviewing Presiding Judges
According to Chinese presiding judge Li Tao, Australia judges have
more jurisdiction than Chinese judges. They could make their own
judgment according to the contents of the case, while Chinese
judges must make their judgment according to strict legal
regulations. China adopts the collegiate system, while Australia
adopts the single judge system. In addition, they adopt the jury
system for both civil or criminal cases, with number of jurors
differing according to the situation.
"Although from different cultural backgrounds, we may have
different ways in enforcing laws and decrees, our basic view is
similar."
According to Judge G.Trafford-Walker from the District Court of
Queensland, the Chinese court is very democratic and fair without
too much emphasis on trivial identification of materials during the
trial. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant can speak for
themselves in Australia, and can only appear as witnesses.
Background
After China's entry into the WTO, Beijing No.1 Intermediate
People's Court wishes to have judiciary communications with their
foreign counterparts so as to promote cultural exchange and
economic cooperation as well as better understand with each other.
They gained active support from Australian side. A dozen senior
judges from the Oceanian country visited Beijing on July 27 for
exchanges and discussions on various legal problems.
(china.org.cn by Wang Qian, August 10, 2002)