Case No 2: Meng Qingzheng’s application for state compensation

1. Background

On April 5, 2013, Meng Qingzheng was suspected of theft and was held in criminal detention by the Nanhu branch of Nanning city’s public security bureau, Southwest China's Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region. On April 28, the arrest of Meng Qingzheng was approved by the people’s procuratorate in Nanning’s Qingxiu district.

On June 27, the Nanhu branch transferred Meng to the procuratorate for examination and prosecution. On Jan 9, 2014, the procuratorate decided not to prosecute Meng due to unclear facts and insufficient evidence, according to the fourth paragraph of Article 171 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

2. Ruling

On Feb 8, 2014, Meng Qingzheng applied for State compensation to the people’s procuratorate of Qingxiu district for his wrongful detention, but the procuratorate rejected the application because it concluded that Meng made a false confession in the arrest reviewing phase and said his statement at the public security organ was true, which led to his arrest. The procuratorate said the arrest was in conformity with the first paragraph of Article 19 of the State Compensation Law.

Then Meng applied to Nanning People’s Procuratorate for reconsideration. On June 13, 2014, the procuratorate cancelled the former decision made by Qingxiu district and required it to pay 55,992.51 yuan ($9119.30) for infringing Meng’s right of personal liberty. The procuratorate held that the evidence collected by the public security organ was defective; Meng’s confession should not be regarded as an intentional false statement and should be excluded. The new decision was based on the second paragraph of Article 17 of the State Compensation Law.

3. Significance

The case involves the application of an exemption clause for state compensation. In this case, after the claimant applied for compensation, the Qingxiu district’s procuratorate -- the organ under compensatory obligation -- held that Meng had made a false confession during the review and approval of arrest, which led to his lawful arrest in conformity with the first paragraph of Article 19 of the State Compensation Law.

This assertion of the procuratorate ignores the major distinction between a confession and an intentionally false statement. A procuratorate can only regard a confession as an intentionally false statement if the offender is found to have made the statement contrary to the facts intentionally. In this case, the fact that the evidence was defective prevented that finding. In practice, the organ under compensatory obligation bears the burden of proof to establish an intentionally false statement if it wishes to be exempted from liability to pay compensation according to the first paragraph of Article 19 of the State Compensation Law.