Publicizing the verdict: Who is afraid, and who isn't?

Making court rulings public is a major step forward in advancing the judicial reform process, ensuring that each ruling is closer to justice and fairness.

The Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court has just issued a resolution on publishing judgments and decisions on the court's electronic portal and has implemented it in practice. Commenting on this, National Assembly representative and lawyer Truong Trong Nghia said: "The public disclosure of judgments according to the Supreme People's Court's resolution is consistent with the principle of public trials."

A major step forward in the field of justice.

Reporter: Sir, what does it mean for the judgment to be made public in accordance with the principle of public trials?

+ National Assembly Representative Truong Trong Nghia: This means that if trials are held publicly, the logic is that the verdicts should also be made public. In many countries, making verdicts public is a matter of course. The State has the responsibility to establish a system of archives so that citizens can easily study the verdicts.

So why is the public disclosure of court judgments only now being implemented in Vietnam?

+ First of all, it's possible that due to wartime conditions and the need for confidentiality, the public disclosure of judgments was not carried out. During wartime, even the conditions for public trials were limited. The slow economic development was also a reason, as there weren't adequate conditions for trials and archiving. Many judgments from the past even had to be written on poor-quality paper… These are objective reasons.

But what about subjective conditions?

The most significant issue remains the incomplete understanding and perspective regarding the principle of public trials. There have been misconceptions that since the trial itself is public, there's no need to publicize the verdict. A public trial means everyone attends and observes the proceedings, but archiving the verdict so that everyone can access it is a different matter.

The Supreme People's Court's Council of Judges' resolution on the public disclosure of judgments means that all judgments must be better archived and everyone has the right to access them. This is a huge step forward in Vietnam's judicial system.

According to him, would making judgments public put more pressure on judges, jurors, and other prosecuting agencies?

Of course. When judgments are made public, the demands on the judicial process, on the panel of judges, on each judge, and even on the lay judges are higher. But in my opinion, publishing the judgment is only the first step. Because according to the principle of openness and transparency, even the court records must be made public. Only then will all the activities of the court, from questioning, argumentation, evidence examination, etc., be fully revealed.

In some countries, even the minority opinion of the panel of judges is printed directly in the judgment so that when people read it, they understand that the judgment was passed by a majority. The inclusion of the minority opinion in the judgment puts pressure on the judicial process.

So, when the verdict is made public, the judicial process must change, right, sir?

First and foremost, the preparation for trials must be scientific and efficient, so that the judgments can be of good quality. Because if all components of the trial, from the panel of judges, prosecutors, lawyers, etc., are not well organized, a good judgment cannot be achieved.

When the verdict is announced, the arguments presented will naturally be scrutinized more closely. It explains why the defendant was not convicted of intentional infliction of injury but instead of murder; why the defendant was not convicted of rape but only of sexual intercourse with a minor…

Making judgments and decisions public will make the judges more cautious. Photo: HOANG GIANG

Judges and… judgment writing skills

But I don't always find the coherence you just mentioned when reading a court ruling, do I?

This is an issue related to the wording of judgments, or the writing style and writing skills of judges. Currently, even in high-level courts, many judgments still contain grammatical and vocabulary errors. Now that judgments are made public, judges must improve their writing skills (judgment writing). Otherwise, people reading the judgments will not understand what the judges are saying, and the public will be negatively affected. The public will immediately know which judges are incompetent and which are competent.

But it's also worth noting that when a verdict is made public, the public will know whether the verdict is fair and whether it ensures justice. The written verdict is a formal pressure, but the arguments and reasoning in the verdict are a substantive pressure. These two pressures are inseparable.

Many judges apply the law very well, but if they cannot write effectively, their arguments and reasoning will not be fully conveyed. The technical aspects of writing case documents have a profound impact.

However, the competence of judges, especially in handling legal cases, cannot be improved overnight...

This creates pressure on judge training. Skills in case writing, rhetoric, and coherence to persuade the public will have to be emphasized more. And this work will certainly be improved in the future.

But I want to emphasize another point, which is the principle of precedent. Publicizing judgments will accelerate the formation of precedents, making them more relevant to practice. Vietnam has allowed the application of precedents in litigation and trials. Therefore, to have precedents, we must study judgments.

The Supreme People's Court has published precedents. If lawyers study these precedents and find rulings that are not included but are relevant to their defense position and viewpoint, they have the right to cite them.

For example, if I search for cases involving intentional injury or traffic accidents, I will find judgments showing that the investigation conclusions and indictments contradict those judgments. In such cases, lawyers, defendants, and accused persons have the right to use the arguments in those judgments to examine their own cases or those of their clients. This helps to quickly and comprehensively establish precedents, bringing them closer to actual judicial practice.

Pressure on judges

"It's not just about the impact on judges; wouldn't the training at law schools also have a positive effect, sir?"

That's right. Previously, undergraduate law training was primarily theoretical or based on examples from the press because there were no court cases. Once court cases are made public, undergraduate law training will be more closely aligned with the practical realities of law students' future careers. Since law students will be exposed to and study court cases during their studies, undergraduate law will be less theoretical. Research at higher levels, such as master's and doctoral degrees, will also become more practical.

And wouldn't the dissemination of legal information to the public be better, sir?

+ This has a huge social impact. People can study court cases themselves to gain experience in legal situations. For example, a businessman might look for court cases related to banking to learn from and avoid making the same mistakes in this field.

The press can also access court rulings from here, and reporting on cases will allow for comparison, contrast, and the creation of opinions and assessments about the cases.

For the judicial system in particular, making judgments public is a pressure, but a healthy one, to help the judiciary increasingly live up to its mission of protecting justice and social equity.

Thank you, sir.

According to the Law of Ho Chi Minh City