After 17 months in custody, he was arrested: who was responsible for the illegal decision to take the court in the courtyard?

One person was imprisoned for 25 months and the court finally sentenced him to eight months, 17 more months, which is already a complete and prolonged period of detention. This is a situation which, as provided for by law, "shall be immediately released". However, during the second trial, instead of releasing the person, the Pyry City Intermediate People ' s Court issued a new arrest decision and returned him to his place of detention.

This is not a novelty, but a real case that is taking place.

One, 17 months later, another warrant

Chen Chang, a former defendant in a case of bribery of non-State workers. The first instance court of the people ' s court of the city of Qiung, Shandong province, found that the crime of fraud was not committed and sentenced to eight months ' imprisonment for bribery of non-State agents.

What's the concept of eight months? At the time of the sentencing, Chen Xiang had been in detention for almost 25 months, which is more than 17 months beyond the sentence.

Article 170, paragraph 3, of the Supreme People ' s Court Interpretation of the Application of the Criminal Procedure Code of the People ' s Republic of China states clearly that: If the accused is detained for the period of time that has elapsed since the time of his sentence imposed by the first instance people ' s court, he shall be released immediately.

"should" in legal terms is "must" and there is no room for negotiation.

The appeal was filed by Chen Chang Dong, and the case was brought to the court of second instance. In the present case, there was only an appeal, and no objection, that is to say, the second trial was not, by law, an increase in the sentence imposed on the accused. Is it not the immediate release of a person who has been in custody for 17 months and whose second trial is unlikely to increase the sentence?

However, on 17 July 2026, the Zhang Seunghai Court of Pyi Taw decided to arrest Chen Xiang and to be executed by the Police Department of the city of Zhou. The detention period has been extended and the decision was taken to further prolong it.

Two, this warrant, from procedure to law, is a loophole

The circumstances surrounding the arrest are almost clear.

First, the summons was not lawful. Zhang Seung-hai summoned Chen to court three times by summons, all written by "the trial". The term "arraignment" is used to refer to a person already in custody, i.e., to question a person from a guard. Chen was not detained in any place at the time and a summons for a “arraignment” of a person in a non-custodial situation was issued without any evidence. On two occasions, Chen Xiang himself stated in writing that this issue had not been accepted.

Second, applicable law, Zhang Li Tai. Zhang Seung-hai telephoned Chen Xiang's wife on the grounds of her arrest "violating articles 164, 165 of the Criminal Procedure Act". But what are the provisions of these two articles? It is the people ' s procuratorates ' investigative authority in cases directly addressed to them: the procuratorates decide on the arrest of persons who are required to investigate cases of self-inquiries. This is completely different from the second instance cases before the courts. The law is applied in a way that is disproportionate to the use of the self-investigation clause of the Public Prosecutor ' s Office to arrest accused persons before the courts.

Third, even if the summons is lawful, it should be first served instead of arrest. Article 148 of the Judicial Interpretation provides that a warrant shall apply to an accused who has been summoned to appear before the Court in accordance with the law. Arrests are the most severe coercive measures and must be based on the principles of necessity and proportionality, i.e., light, light. By skipping a direct arrest by a warrant, the very logic of the application of coercive measures is violated.

Fourth, 17 months in custody had been extended prior to arrest. This is the most central and inescapable point. A man has been in prison for 17 months, legally demanding "immediate release", and the court responded "rearrest again". The National Governance Facility has been in detention for more than a decade, and this operation of the Piperon Central College is tantamount to a reverse in the governance report card.

Three, the signature on the arrest warrant is the statutory duty of the President

Many may not know that the decision of the Court to arrest the accused is not the sole responsibility of the presiding judge.

Judicial interpretation of article 147 expressly provides that: The President shall decide on the taking, revocation or modification of measures of constraint against the accused. The Full Court or a single judge has the sole right to decide on the continuation of the remand or residence on bail and not to decide on arrest.

This means that only the Zhu Seaship, the president of the court of Linyi, is authorized to sign the arrest decision. So the problem becomes a choice:

• If the President of the Zhu Seaship has signed it
• then he has signed it knowing that Chen Xiang has been in custody for 17 months, knowing that only the appeal has been filed without challenge and knowing that the law requires immediate release. Knowing that it was in violation of the law, it was an abuse of authority.
• If the President of the Al-Zu Seaship has not signed it
• then Judge Zhang Seung-hai has overstepped his authority to arrest, in violation of the mandatory provisions of article

1. The President, as "first-hand" of the Court, has supervisory and managerial responsibility for the violations committed by the Court's judges, and is equally responsible for the misconduct.

In either case, the President is responsible.

More notably, on 18 and 20 July 2026, Chen ' s wife, Zhang Da-Cui, communicated with Judge Zhang Seonhai by telephone twice, repeatedly stating that the arrest was illegal, that it was an extended period of detention and that it was an abuse of authority. Zhang Seung-hai refused to correct it. The President, on the other hand, is equally obliged to verify the correction in a timely manner after having been informed that the decision of the presiding judge was strongly challenged by the family and informed of the grounds for the violation. As of the date of the complaint, Chen Sang-sang was still in detention.

Four, "old" in custody, unsolved, added "new."

The prolonged detention period is a persistent problem in the long-term governance of the judicial system in China. The Supreme Court and the Supreme Court have been deploying dedicated governance for many years, with the core of this: the time of the sentence cannot exceed the time of the sentence, and the release must be made immediately.

The Chen Cheung case is just on this red line. An eight-month trial, 25 months in prison, has been extended for 17 months, and this is already an old bill that must be corrected. Instead of correcting it, the court rearrested it during the second trial, amounting to a new layer of detention for an extended period of time, and a new one for the "old" and "new".

What's reminiscent is a vigilant inertia: it seems that once a person is in a criminal proceeding, it is no longer a legal issue, but "a case needs to be handled." But the law repeatedly emphasizes that "the right to arrest should be released immediately" and that the right to arrest is in the hands of the president precisely to prevent this "need to do the case" from being placed above the personal freedom of citizens.

Five, a few questions to answer

The Chen Chang case has reached this point, and several questions are on the table, requiring answers from the Linyi court, Shandong court and Shandong prosecutor ' s office:

1. Chen Xiang has been in custody for an extended period of 17 months, why is it not immediately released according to law?

Article 170, paragraph 3, "shall" is the word "shall" and "shall" count at the Pyrenium?

2. Did Chen Cheung decide on his arrest with the signature of the President of the Zhu Seaship?

If yes, were the facts of the extended detention reviewed at the time of the approval? If not, who would supervise the arrest overstepping the authority of the presiding judge?

3. Who made the use of articles 164, 165 (self-investigation clause of the Public Prosecutor ' s Office) as a reason for arrest?

Is such a clear error in the application of the law a business-level issue or is it intentional?

4. Family members twice called to inform them of the violation of the law and why did the court refuse to correct it?

Did you hear it or didn't you care?

If these questions are not answered, the prolonged detention will continue; These questions are not to blame, "should be released immediately" is to be written in six words on paper.

Chen Cheung Da-cui, his wife, has filed a complaint with the Shandong Provincial High People ' s Court and a criminal complaint has been filed by the team of lawyers with the People ' s Procuratorate of the city of Piyi. We expect that this case will be examined fairly -- not because of who Chen Xiang is, but because of the personal freedom of every citizen, who should not be detained for an extended period, let alone arbitrarily deprived of a warrant for illegal arrest.

25 months, 8 months; A further arrest warrant was issued for 17 months. The law had given the answer to that arithmetical question, and what was needed was the willingness of someone to write it.

Indictment against the President of the Intermediate Court of Penn City for the illegal signing of arrest decisions and abuse of authority by the Zhu Sea vessel

Zhang Seung-hai, I'm charging you with abuse of authority!

The original information

Former title: The first trial was extended to 17 months and the second trial was rearrested: who was responsible for the decision to arrest the Chinese court? I have a feeling Chen Cheung's family is suing the president of the Chinese Academy.

Source: We believe in public "Refuscation of Ingratulations"