Abstract
It is generally believed that there are two prosecution models. One is the “charge-statement-only doctrine” in civil law countries, and the other is the “charge-statement-only doctrine” in common law countries. As an integral part of the ex officio doctrine, the file transfer system allows judges to comprehensively review the files held and transferred by the prosecutor, so as to prepare for the trial. In civil law countries such as Germany and France, the reason why judges can lead the process of evidence investigation in court and control the scope, sequence and method of evidence investigation is inseparable from their case file transfer system. On the contrary, according to the charge-statement-only doctrine, the procurator submits only the indictment to the court when initiating a prosecution.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For more information on the “exclusiveness of the bill of prosecution” and the “doctrine of prosecuting discretion”, see Li **njian. (1992). The structure of criminal procedure. China University of Political Science and Law Press, p. 238.
- 2.
For a comprehensive review of the reform of the criminal procedure in Japan and Italy, see Chen Ruihua. (2003). The theory of criminal trial (2nd ed.). Peking University Press, p. 286.
- 3.
For the background and effects of the 1996 criminal trial reform, see Chen Ruihua. (2010). The Chinese model of criminal procedure (2nd ed.). Law Press, p. 162.
- 4.
For an analysis of the procedure of pre-trial review of public prosecutions established by the 1979 Criminal Procedure Law, see Chen Ruihua. (1999). The theory of criminal trials. Peking University Press, p. 341.
- 5.
Wang Shangxin. (1994). Some issues in the revision of the criminal procedure law. Jurisprudence Research, 5.
- 6.
Chen Guangzhong, Yan Duan. (1995). The proposed draft of the revision of the criminal procedure law of the people’s republic of China and the argument. China Fangzheng Publishing House, p. 290.
- 7.
Li **njian. (1992). The structure of criminal procedure. China University of Political Science and Law Press, p. 238.
- 8.
Chen Guangzhong, Yan Duan. (1995). The proposed draft of the revision of the criminal procedure law of the people's republic of China and the argument. China Fangzheng Publishing House, p. 290.
- 9.
For a discussion of the 1996 reform of the criminal trial method and the reform of the review of the public prosecution system, see Zhang Jun. (1996). Some issues on the trial method of criminal cases. Chinese Jurisprudence, 3.
- 10.
Gu Angran. (1996). Litigation, arbitration and state compensation system in China. Law Press, p. 21.
- 11.
For an analysis of the Italian criminal trial system, see Chen, Ruihua. (2003). Theory of criminal trials. Peking University Press, p. 326.
- 12.
Zhang Jun. (1996). Some issues on the trial method of criminal cases. Chinese Jurisprudence, 3.
- 13.
Wang Zelai. (1993). Research on improving criminal procedure legislation. People’s Public Security University of China Press, p. 96.
- 14.
“Provisions on Certain Issues of the Criminal Procedure Law” promulgated by the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of National Security, the Ministry of Justice, and the Legislative Affairs Committee of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in 1998, Article 35, Article 36, Article 37.
- 15.
“Provisions on Certain Issues of the Criminal Procedure Law” promulgated by the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of National Security, the Ministry of Justice, and the Legislative Affairs Committee of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in 1998, Article 42.
- 16.
Cheng Yubing. (2006). Defending the 260 million yuan dart company case. Lawyers and Legal System, 2.
- 17.
For more information on this aspect, see the Criminal court of Jiangsu provincial high people's court. (2004). Survey report on the reform of criminal trial methods and criminal trial mechanisms in the province. Overview of Criminal Trials (Vol. 4), Law Press.
- 18.
For reflections related to the 2012 Criminal Procedure Law’s reinstatement of the pre-trial transfer of case files system, see Chen Ruihua. (2011). Commenting on the reform proposal of the criminal procedure law revision (draft) on trial procedures. Jurisprudence, 11.
- 19.
For a discussion of Chinese adjudication culture in which judges focus on substantive truth, see Chen Ruihua. (2010). The Chinese model of criminal procedure (2nd ed.). Law Press, p. 282.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chen, R. (2022). Evolution and Reflection of File Transfer System. In: Models of Criminal Procedure System. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3651-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3651-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-19-3650-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-19-3651-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)