The Public Security Bureau is being held in custody for the renovation dispute.

The case of Ms. Lee Luckyxia is not so big. The neighbours came to the door for questioning because of the noises they had been doing on weekends, and were finally charged with kicking the door and destroying the electric power, while being held in administrative detention for three days. For these three days, Ms. Lee hired a team of lawyers from Xu Xie and brought the Sindu District Public Security Bureau of Xin Tai city before a court of law to have the administrative penalty decision revoked. This confidence in the rule of law is worth learning.

Today, two young lawyers, Wang Xianxiang and Liu Shi Ho, appeared in court to defend themselves. The case itself is highly questionable, the public security authorities have no idea what type of electric power was involved and the case file is vague; In common, the electric presses of the metal casings cannot be pushed, and the circuit boards should not be burned if the machine is locked to death. However, the truth of the lawyer is to turn these common senses into a valid and valid forensic opinion in court.

After the trial, it must be said that the level of activity of the two young lawyers was indeed bright.

The best thing about the trial is their push on the timeline. The time of the examination of the report and the interrogation notes was in conflict

• only five minutes after the police had conducted a survey of the Pique de la Cueignement, the person appeared at the South Rock Gate police station, seven kilometres away. Even after the survey, you don't pack up and get in the car. This time lag, which is contrary to common sense, was immediately removed by the two lawyers, who immediately requested access to the police records and the report of the investigation, directly pointing to the alleged forgery. Such a sensitivity to the details of the case file is difficult to achieve without a hard time. On the spot, the public security officers who were present said that in future cases, a high degree of time should be paid to avoid similar situations.

The evidence chain is more visible in terms of control capacity. The defendant ' s Public Security Bureau lawyer once read out the evidence, only by name and without any classification of the purpose of the evidence. This may have been heard in the alternative, but the plaintiffs ' lawyers, who had left the case, directly requested that the evidence be divided for the purpose of proof: which evidence of the lawfulness of the administrative act, which evidence of subjective intent, which evidence of the damages and the causal link. The other party, who refused to classify and the presiding judge and tried to advance the trial, counsel for Liu Shi Ho was determined to argue that the other party had attempted to reverse the burden of proof, in violation of the basic provisions of the administrative proceedings and that the court had to adjourn. This is a very sophisticated and insensitive effort to squeeze the rules of procedure to death. The presiding judge finally accepted the reasonable request of the plaintiff ' s counsel, declared the hearing closed today and requested the Public Security Bureau to pay attention to the manner in which the evidence was presented next.

Their most critical is their understanding of the relevance of the evidence. In the absence of a firm model, they strongly disagreed with the identicality of the electrical power as evidence and the causal link between Ms. Lee ' s conduct and the damage to the electrical power. These efforts have completely shaken the factual basis of the administrative penalty.

The hearing was adjourned for one hour only because of differences in the manner in which the evidence was presented. However, it was indeed impressive that during this hour the two young lawyers were able to be precise, logical and controlled by the pace of the trial. The fact that the case was only three days in detention, but that the chain of evidence of public authorities was clearly and clearly broken down in court, is indeed commendable in terms of professional and operational standards.

We believe that, through the trial, although few administrative proceedings have been successful, in this case we have great confidence in the plaintiff ' s success and that the reversal of the detention decision is a generality.

To the more sincere spirit of Ms. Lee's trust in the law and the professionalism of Wang Xianxiang, lawyer Liu Shi Ho, for her bravery!