On October 15 and 16, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) of China held expanded committee meetings and a party group meeting. The discussions focused on reporting on cases deemed unsatisfactory in terms of quality from the national prosecution authority since 2019, as well as examining measures to enhance and improve prosecutorial management while reducing the burden on grassroots units.

The meeting was chaired by Ying Yong, the Secretary of the SPP Party Group and Procurator-General. He emphasized the importance of adhering strictly to the law, being pragmatic, and following established principles. He advocated for a shift in prosecutorial management from mere data oversight to a stronger focus on case management and quality control. The goal is to integrate macro-level analyses of case effectiveness with micro-level evaluations of case quality, further implementing and refining the judicial responsibility system.

During the meeting, it was highlighted that in the first three quarters of this year, the national prosecution authorities maintained a coordinated development across the “Four Major Prosecutions,” enhancing legal supervision efforts and achieving generally good case quality and efficiency. Significant progress was noted in the special actions for enterprise protection and safeguarding people’s livelihoods, with a more effective mechanism for high-quality case handling. However, challenges remain, including the need for better standards in the examination and arrest of criminal cases, insufficient use of civil retrial recommendations, inadequate oversight of administrative rulings, and the need for improved quality in public interest litigation cases.

The gathering indicated that overall, the operational climate within the national prosecution authorities is favorable, with an increasing dedication among prosecutors to handle cases with high quality and efficiency. Nonetheless, some prosecutors have been too focused on data metrics and rankings, emphasizing superficial performance over substantive case handling, largely due to inappropriate assessment practices.

The meeting concluded that it is essential for the SPP to lead by example in rectifying improper evaluations within prosecutorial management, particularly the excessive emphasis on numerical assessments that may burden personnel rather than support them.

A decision was made to eliminate unnecessary, inappropriate, or unreasonable evaluations, especially those affecting grassroots prosecutorial bodies. This includes discontinuing the prosecutorial business evaluation index system, ceasing to publish various ranking reports, and shifting the focus of management from simplistic data oversight to more meaningful case and quality management. This new direction aims to integrate macro analyses of case effectiveness with micro evaluations of case quality, guiding the prosecution agencies and personnel to adopt and practice a correct view of performance outcomes.

The meeting reiterated that while the evaluation index system will no longer be enforced and rankings of operational data will cease, this does not imply a disregard for data or management practices. Rather, the emphasis will be on ensuring data accuracy and objectivity, harnessing data analysis to gain deeper insights into the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of case handling, ultimately identifying key factors influencing prosecutorial performance and providing a more scientific basis for delivering high-quality legal services.