To explore the establishment of a scientific, reasonable, rule-of-law-compliant and comprehensive performance evaluation system for judicial personnel, give full play to the management, incentive and restraining functions of performance appraisal, and achieve the coordinated and steady improvement of the work quality, efficiency and effectiveness of judges and procurators, the Renmin Law and Technology Institute of Renmin University of China together with Anhui Fuchi Information Technology Co., Ltd., held a special seminar on indicator design of judicial performance evaluation from the perspective of intelligent judiciary, as well as the inauguration ceremony of the RUC-Fuchi Research Center for Judicial Data Governance and Quantitative Application, on January 5. More than 60 leading experts from practical departments including legislative organs, Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission, the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and numerous courts and procuratorates across the country, together with academic representatives, attended the seminar and engaged in in-depth discussions.

Opening Session

      The seminar was presided over by Associate Professor Cheng Lei, Director of the Research Center for Judicial Data Governance and Quantitative Application and faculty member of the Renmin University of China Law School. Professor Wang Yi, Dean of the Law School and Director of the Renmin Law and Technology Institute, Renmin University of China; Professor Chen Weidong, Changjiang Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Academic Committee of the Renmin University of China Law School; Zhou Yu, CEO of Fuchi Information Technology Co., Ltd., delivered speeches at the opening session.

Wang Yi,

Professor, Dean of the Law School and Director of the Renmin Law and Technology Institute, Renmin University of China

      Professor Wang Yi pointed out that judicial data bears not only economic and social significance but also great importance and value for advancing the development of the rule of law in China. Research on judicial data is rooted in the present while oriented toward the future.

Chen Weidong,

Changjiang Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Academic Committee of the Renmin University of China Law School

      Professor Chen Weidong pointed out that the sheer number of cases handled by a judge within a certain period cannot be simply adopted as the sole quantitative criterion for judging judicial efficiency and conducting performance appraisal. Judicial work involves numerous professional factors that can hardly and should not be quantified in a simplistic manner, for they entail subjective evaluation and thus cannot be measured by unified benchmarks. Constructing an intelligent performance management platform through quantitative analysis of big data constitutes a positive and worthwhile attempt to address such problems.

      Mr. Zhou Yu expressed the hope that relying on this research center as a platform, strengths from academia, judicial organs and legal practitioners from all walks of life could be pooled to spark innovative insights through the integration of legal thinking and data thinking in the new era.

Session One

Release of the Blue Book on Performance Evaluation from the Perspective of Intelligent Judiciary

Session One was presided over by Cheng Lei.

      Yan Sheng, Director of the Project Center at Fuchi Information Technology Co., Ltd., released the Blue Book on Performance Evaluation from the Perspective of Intelligent Judiciary on behalf of the company. He elaborated on the prominent pain points existing in current judicial performance management practices, and then introduced how the self-developed performance management system of the company addresses practical difficulties.

      Professor Huang Taiyun, Director of the Criminal Law Research Center of the Tianjin University Law School, held that performance appraisal for judges is necessary, yet the current appraisal methods and indicator setting are in urgent need of revision. Professor Xiong Qiuhong, Deputy Director of the Judicial Reform Office of the Supreme People’s Court and Research Fellow at the Institute of Law, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, pointed out that the concept of judicial performance evaluation should be clearly defined. The word "management" in the phrase "judicial performance management" carries a strong administrative overtone and is inappropriate for application in the judicial field. Gao Jingfeng, Deputy Director of the Judicial Reform Office of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, stated that improving the judicial performance appraisal mechanism conforms to the guiding spirit of the overall arrangement for judicial system reform laid down at the 19th CPC National Congress, aligns with the development direction of political and legal work in the new era, and satisfies the practical demands of judicial system reform. Fang Wei from the Bureau of Rule of Law of the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission pointed out that judicial performance appraisal is a double-edged sword. The appraisal mechanism should be understood against the practical work realities of current judicial organs. Such a mechanism can unlock the productivity of judicial human resources and exert positive incentive effects.

Session Two

Review and Prospect of Intelligent Judiciary

Session Two was presided over by Zhou Yu

      Li Shouwei, Director of the Judicial Division of the Supervisory and Judicial Affairs Committee of the National People's Congress, pointed out that studying judicial rules is a prerequisite for formulating judicial performance evaluation systems that conform to judicial rules. Research on judicial rules centers on judicial acts. Nowadays, all judicial acts can be fully recorded, generating massive available data resources. We are now able to conduct research based on such extensive data to identify which acts and factors exert impacts on judicial work and figure out how to realize judicial justice. He argued that well-designed indicators hold the key to advancing judicial justice through performance evaluation. We can learn about judges' views on performance evaluation through specific cases, and make adjustments based on the results to improve the design of the indicators. In addition, the degree of granularity of the indicators should be considered. For certain judicial discretionary powers, relatively broad indicators may be adopted, and they should be continuously refined through an iterative process, through which we can understand the impact of the indicators on judicial behavior.

      He Fan, from the Planning Division of the Judicial Reform Office of the Supreme People's Court, raised the question of what judicial reform needs big data to do. He argued that the decision‑making in judicial reform requires empirical support from big data, the effectiveness of judicial reform needs scientific evaluation, the realization of intelligent adjudication needs algorithmic assistance, and frontier reforms need big data to serve as a pathfinder.

      Ai Zhongliang, Vice General Manager and researcher at the China Judicial Big Data Research Institute Co., Ltd., introduced to the participating guests the original purpose and research objectives of the institute.

Professor Liu Jihua, Director of the Procedural Law Teaching and Research Office of the Renmin University of China Law School, pointed out that there are currently some misconceptions in the implementation of smart justice: the focus remains largely at the conceptual level, and the courts and procuratorates operate independently with insufficient interconnectivity.

      Zhang Jiyu, Executive Dean of the Renmin Law and Technology Institute, Renmin University of China, pointed out that smart justice requires algorithms to place greater emphasis on scientific rigor and feedback mechanisms, and to build confidence in smart justice itself.

      Ding Xiaodong, Deputy Dean of the Renmin Law and Technology Institute, Renmin University of China, stated that the integration of law and technology should not adopt technological determinism. The use of technology to assist legal research must be applied as a means of comprehensive governance. Judicial data governance is a process of comprehensive data governance, and only within the framework of comprehensive governance can technology truly play its role.

      Dr. Li Zhifeng, a partner at Silver Leaf Investment Private Equity Fund and a financial data expert, pointed out that quantitative methods have the advantages of discipline, efficiency, and systematicness compared with traditional manual approaches.

      Professor Lin Feng, Associate Dean of the School of Law at City University of Hong Kong, introduced to the participants the research on judicial data in the Hong Kong region, especially the application of judicial data at both the legal service and research levels, which aroused great interest among the attendees.

      At the end of the seminar, Associate Professor Cheng Lei expressed his gratitude to the participating guests, stating that the center would organize its researchers to seriously digest and absorb the valuable opinions of the experts and scholars. He affirmed the commitment to adhere to the original purpose of the research center, make full use of its resources, keep pace with the times, and strive to produce high‑level and high‑quality research outcomes as soon as possible, so as to better serve the current and future rule‑of‑law undertakings.

Editor:Xu Liuya

Reviewer: Zhu Peiwen