On 17 August 2026, the People's Court of the Autonomous City of Guangxi Quikong issued a decision on fines: according to the help articles of the client, Ming Quan (female) stated that she was found to be "disturbing the court order" and fined $1,000 under article 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recording audio recordings of the retrial of the Chinese trial in the video-room of the court. Help U Yunpen, a member of the police force, was released from detention for less than a year after being held in administrative detention for five days.
From being detained to being fined, from being published on the sidelines to recording the hearing - the border of citizens listening to public hearings
- was once again pushed into the public eye.
- What did Ming-kwon do and what did he get punished for?
I'm not gonna be able to
According to Mingkok himself, 11 days ago, on 6 August, the Dinghua case was reopened in the detention centre was held by video and a video-seeding room was set up in the court of Kyou City for remote observation by the viewers. The video-hearing room is accessible to the recorder with a record of the open-air tape, which is limited to one hour ' s hearing. On the adjournment of the court hearing, the bailiff requested that the taped pen be locked in the box and she cooperated in doing so. She was then taken to the disciplinary room, where the staff member Liu Xiaoyang was instructed to sign the "no more breaches of court discipline" commitment, which was to be made "a guarantee of the right to be heard in accordance with the law". After signing the tape, she was held and taken to another room. The Sing-kook indicated that only one of the recordings was relevant to the trial, and that the rest was her personal privacy for many years, which she requested to return after an on-site inspection and was refused. She asked if and when restitution could be made, and replied that it was not known, and that it was up to the leadership to decide. After withholding the taped pen, she was left in the cautionary room. She was informed later that she could leave — presumably read the tape, found nothing else, but the tape still cannot be taken. It was over 2 p.m., and she was starving and went to dinner. She went to court again at 3 p.m. and was stopped outside the compound by two bailiffs. Another person in a grey brown uniform, who came out from inside and went to the door (who had seen her during the noon interview), said that she had been disqualified from attending. The clear space said: "Didn't you say this morning that if I promised not to break court discipline again, my right to be heard would be guaranteed by law? "The other side speaks. She asked, "So you're lying? I'm not going anywhere. "The other side answered: "Yes! "She asked again, and the other side stopped talking. In the afternoon, she was called by the local police station to make her take a statement. She was only aware that the court had already handed over her materials to the public security. It's good to be done, but she can't go to court again. She left Kyoshi very quickly after the incident, in order to keep the Dhihua trial as smooth as possible, and without any reports from the members of the public. Eleven days later, the court of KUCU decided to fine 1000 yuan.
Core dispute: The actual trial site for this trial is in the detention facility, and the court side is a video-hearing room. So, can section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "in the course of a court trial", be applied directly to the court's video-hearing room? Can you skip the direct maximum of the middle gradient in cases of first-time offenders, co-operation and disciplined behaviour? In addition, does the transfer of material to police stations by the Court mean that the same act is being treated twice?
(b) According to article 17 of the Rules of the People ' s Court Courts, no audio, video or photo recordings of the proceedings may be made during the proceedings; The relevant judicial interpretation also makes it clear that unauthorized recordings, videos, photographs "can be withheld from storage media or related equipment". The problem, however, is that the legislation of this provision is intended to provide for a special treatment of "suspension equipment" in the act of recording itself, rather than a maximum fine that is directly equivalent to "serious circumstances".
Two, Duanhua: Why did the listeners follow?
I'm not gonna be able to
To understand the weight of the ticket, it must first understand the context of the case. Director of the Judicial Commission of the former Guilin City Bar Association and Director of the Guangxi Qishing Law Office, Guangxi. He represented Guangxi Gui Guangxi Union Bus Industries Ltd. in the case of reinstatement, which gave the company approximately $1.44 million in claims for $300,000 and resulted in over $6 million in repayments after years of litigation. (a) In August 2024, the Court of Kowloon handed down its first instance judgement, finding that the failure of Dhihua to disclose to his client the key evidence and the increased likelihood of success constituted a fraud offence; It was also found to have bribed 30,000 yuan. First instance sentence of 11 years and 2 months of imprisonment The appeal was not successful. On 9 July 2025, the City of Guilin Intermediate People ' s Court ruled in second instance: the first instance judgement was quashed on the grounds that the original judgement found that part of the crime was not clear, and the trial was remanded to the Qin Town District People ' s Court. This is a case that was remanded and the core entity disputed directly to the "barrel at risk" border. This is why there is a high level of interest among lawyers and academics throughout the country. The first hearing was held on 17 March 2026, with the Tribunal having only 32 sittings, and a large number of field attorneys were prevented from entering the courtroom; The defence protested, with only five additional seats, and no video-hearing room at an early stage. Mingkok is one of the listeners who walked into the court of Kyou Town during this period. This hearing, which took place on 6 August, was actually in the custody, and the court was in the presence of video — itself a continuation of the “hearing rights dilemma” in the rehearing of the Chinese case.
I'm not gonna be able to
Three, the right to be heard remains undefended after the stand-in is detained
I'm not gonna be able to
Pull back the sights to September 2025. Qingdao law lover Wu Yun Peng, who is in the capacity of "the listener" to public hearings, is also in the public domain and has a microphone on the public record. From 8 to 9 September 2025, he was present at the court of the capital city of Zhengzhou, in the court of the Customary District, where 18 persons were involved in the crime of corruption, and issued two notes. On 10 September, he was taken away by the judicial police while he was still on the sidelines and handed over to the public security authorities. On 11 September, the Public Security Directorate of the city was held in administrative detention for 5 days for "false facts disturbing public order". Professor Han Xue of Law, Sichuan University, evaluated the case:
This is a constitutional event concerning the right of citizens to be heard, to be supervised and to be free to speak. "..
Wu Yunpen contested and filed an administrative suit. The case was scheduled to be heard on 16 June 2026 at the People ' s Court of the City of Newmerica, and was subsequently cancelled and the new platoon is expected to be finalized.
The Mingkorn and Wu Yun Peng cases constitute two recent landmark "public events of the right to be heard": the Viduz U Yun Peng case, the Myung Yingkyeong trial court session on the spot of the prison held on 20 September 2025 + the court ' s video-visiting court court of the subject public security organ punished by a fine of $1,000 for five days of administrative detention in a hard-on-the-hearing act under article 25 of the Law on Public Security Administration Penalties + The release of audio-visual video-visual-visual-visual-visual-visual-visual-challenges, free speech, monitoring-video-challenge legal characterization, and the possibility of a maximum fine after a disciplinary period
I'm not gonna be able to
IV. Legal disputes in the Mingkok case: four outstanding questions
I'm not gonna be able to
The KIMCU court invoked article 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code and article 307 of the Interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Code. In contrast to the present case, there are at least four levels of controversy: 1. Does the video-hearing room belong to "the court proceedings"? Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies on the premise that "in the course of a trial in a court of law" Article 2 of the Rules of the People ' s Court Courts states: "The courts are the specialized places where the people ' s courts shall hear cases on behalf of the State according to law. "This retrial of the Swahua case, the actual trial activity took place in the detention centre, and the court of Kyou City was a video-hearing room — physically not within the "court". There is considerable controversy as to whether Ming-Kung's recording of audio in the video-room is directly applicable to the maximum penalty clause "violation of court order during court proceedings". 2. Is the penalty a violation of the "3rd-degree-in-the-way" gradient? The judicial interpretation clearly establishes three levels of treatment: a less serious one, a warning to stop and a caution to stop, and an order to the judicial police to remove him from court in serious cases, with the approval of the President, is punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or by detention for up to fifteen days. The pen of the Sing-kok co-operated (the warning was fulfilled), was instructed and signed (the instruction was completed) and should not have jumped to the top of the third class. 3. Is there a special treatment for "unauthorized recording"? The judicial interpretation of the recording is separate from the following: "Unauthorized recording, video, photography or dissemination of the proceedings by mail, blog, microblogging etc. may be suspended from storage media or related equipment". The legislation was intended to result in the simple recording of the content, not a fine. The court has checked the taped text and withheld the equipment on 6 August, and the special disposal measures have been implemented. 4. Does the transfer of public security by the courts constitute a double treatment? After the court was ordered and the taped pen was withheld, the court transferred the material to the local police station, which informed her of the statement. This means that the same act (recording audio recordings of court hearings) went through two procedures, one by court caution + detention of equipment, and the other by public order investigation, and eventually the court imposed an additional fine of $1,000. Whether this is a violation of the "no more penalty" jurisprudence is worthy of the careful consideration of the review body.
Five, why is this a matter of national lawyers' interest
I'm not gonna be able to
First, regarding the legal boundary of legal representation of lawyers at risk. The maintenance of the grounds for conviction in the Zhaohua case would have a chilling effect on the risk representation of lawyers throughout the country — to what extent is counsel under an "information disclosure obligation" in the process of representation? Where is the "reasonable threshold" of profit for the risk agent? These issues need to be clarified through the paragraph cases. Second, in relation to the guarantee of the right to be heard in public hearings. 32 sittings are for lawyers and academics from around the country, which is a water truck; The case further evolved into a model of "Customs Online + Court Video Watch". The trial in the detention centre, the setting up of a video-hearing room and the imposition of a maximum fine for recording — a reflection of the distortions faced by the public trial system in the practice at the grass-roots level. Third, regarding access to remedies for procedural violations. When an ordinary citizen enters the court out of interest in the administration of justice and is fined in the top for a recording, it is itself a mirror — it is a reflection of our current court rules, whether in the name of “maintenance of court order” the proper space for citizens to listen and record is overstretched. Article 1 of the Rules of the People's Court Courts clearly states that the legislative purposes include " to maintain the security and order of the courts, to guarantee the proper conduct of court proceedings, to guarantee the exercise of the right of litigants to the legal process, to facilitate public access to justice, to promote the impartiality of the judiciary and to highlight the authority of the judiciary" — note that the eight words are: " to facilitate public access to the court". This was one of the legislative purposes of the Tribunal ' s rules and should not be forgotten in practice.
VI. The options for the light-shut: application for review, request for hearing
According to article 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the person liable to punishment may apply to the higher People ' s Court (i.e. the Intermediate People ' s Court of Guilin City) for reconsideration. ACK indicated that a review would be requested from the Centre of Guilin and that a public hearing would be required.
Time window: decision on fine was made on 17 August 2026. Akaka may entrust an assistance lawyer or herself with the possibility of submitting an application for review at the earliest possible time.
Seven, call the national lawyer
Based on the above-mentioned facts and legal disputes, Mingkok has formally sought the support of legal aid lawyers throughout the country by means of a letter of help, and has commissioned specialized lawyers to work with them on the review and hearing of fines. Counsel who is interested in reaching out to help can contact by:
- We believe in tingshenshiwsh.
- Tel: 15717538272
(b) Also calls for the establishment of a mechanism for communication "to guarantee the right to monitor the right to be heard" to bring together cases of illegal restrictions on the right to be heard from various locations; To advise the Ministry of Justice on the proposed amendment to the Rules of the People ' s Court Courts to allow for the recording of audio-visual recordings without interfering with the proceedings.
Write it at the end
The $1,000 fine is small, but it raises a huge problem: is there a serious impact when the content of the public hearing is recorded? If so, what kind of content would it be to say that the content of the trial cannot be seen in light — in public hearings? The arrest of Wu Yunpen from the "Presidency" to the live recording of the trial in Mingkok was a thousand dollars, and between the two public events, the same pending constitutional question: to what extent can the right of citizens to be present in public hearings be respected in accordance with the law? The trend in recent years has been towards a marked and weak public administration of justice, a live flow of court proceedings, selective disclosure of court decisions, a large number of cases with restricted access to the public hearing, which has become one of the few ways in which judicial publicity is conducted. In this context, each time a person is punished or detained, it is not just an individual encounter, but a thermometer for the entire system of judicial disclosure. The retrial of the Dhu ' a case is still ongoing. We expect that the Central Court of Guilin will be able to carefully review the decision to fine the fine in accordance with the law during the review proceedings. We also look to the national lawyers to follow the case — because the fate of a lawyer may be the fate of the entire profession; The right of an observer may be the right of every citizen.
Progress in the rule of law often begins in a specific, seemingly small case. The 1000-dollar fine in the light of the sky, perhaps that's the starting point.
The facts of the present paper are based on public reports and statements by the parties, and legal disputes are governed by the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of the People ' s Court. The transmission is welcome to increase the attention given to the issue of guarantees of access to public hearings.
Cannot initialise Evolution's mail component.
Original title: Watching the live audio recording of the trial was fined $1,000, and another public incident followed by the arrest of the witness?
Source: Wecless Public, Poetry and Tea and Wine Unit.
Article discussion
Verified members can discuss this report publicly and manage their own content.
Checking member sign-in status…