Summary of case quality evaluation and investigation work of judicial bureau

Summary of case quality evaluation and investigation work of judicial bureau: 3 articles

Summary refers to a written material that social groups, enterprises, units and individuals review, check, analyze and evaluate after a certain period, a certain project or a certain work is completed, so as to affirm achievements, gain experience, find out gaps, learn lessons and have some regular knowledge. It can effectively exercise our language organization ability, so it is better to calm down and write a summary. How to write a summary to play its role? The following are three summaries of the case quality evaluation of the Justice Bureau that I helped you sort out. Welcome to read the collection.

In recent years, the District Bureau of Justice has conscientiously implemented the spirit of the relevant documents of the Municipal Bureau of Justice and the Political and Legal Committee of the District Committee, paid close attention to the quality of handling cases, and carefully followed the requirements of the case quality evaluation activities. The Party Committee of our bureau attached great importance to it, carefully arranged and implemented it, and the evaluation work was promoted in an orderly manner. The evaluation work is summarized as follows:

First, strengthen leadership, implement responsibilities, and provide organizational guarantee for evaluation.

According to the relevant requirements of the Municipal Bureau of Justice and the Political and Legal Committee of the District Committee, our bureau set up a leading group for case quality evaluation headed by Party Secretary and Director Comrade in time, and dispatched specialized personnel to participate in the case quality evaluation. At the same time, according to the requirements of the Political and Legal Committee of the District Committee, the content and time of case evaluation activities were carefully arranged, and the self-examination and review of the bureau were carefully completed according to the specific situation of each year. The evaluation is mainly divided into three stages. The first stage is self-examination and self-correction, reporting the situation; The second stage is mainly spot check and cross check; The third stage is case analysis and centralized evaluation; Lay the foundation for summarizing and rectifying.

Second, a comprehensive evaluation, highlighting key points

According to the specific circumstances, the case appraisers conduct spot checks on the basis of general inspection. In recent years, the number of cases submitted by our bureau to the Political and Legal Committee of the District Committee for evaluation has reached 15, which has truly achieved the supervision and evaluation of our work by superiors and corrected our own shortcomings in time. Through case analysis, we realize that the case file, as a record of administrative law enforcement, reflects the quality of law enforcement and the quality of law enforcement personnel, and embodies the government's level of administration according to law; The problems existing in law enforcement archives are the concentrated reflection of the problems existing in case handling quality, law enforcement team, law enforcement system and law enforcement level. Therefore, the leaders of our bureau attach great importance to the case evaluation as a "breakthrough" and three key tasks to comprehensively promote administration according to law. You investigators are also fully aware that case evaluation is the basic work to resolve social contradictions and disputes, promote fair and honest law enforcement, and is an important measure to solve law enforcement problems, strengthen law enforcement supervision and improve law enforcement quality; It is the core work of implementing the "Implementation Outline of Comprehensively Promoting Administration by Law in the State Council" and the "Decision of the State Council on Strengthening Administration by Law of City and County Governments"; It is also an effective measure to improve legal supervision and an effective means to promote administrative law enforcement organs to improve the level of administration according to law. To grasp administration according to law, we must attach importance to file evaluation, which will grasp the key to comprehensively promote administration according to law and fair and honest law enforcement, and effectively improve the government's management level under the rule of law.

Third, focus on key points, pay attention to practical results, and improve efficiency.

This comprehensive file quality evaluation mainly includes people's mediation files, legal aid files and fair files handled in recent years. Combined with the actual work, determine the focus of file evaluation. In terms of case types, it is necessary to comprehensively and objectively evaluate and focus on spot checks, conscientiously sum up the civil, criminal and fair files that have been spot-checked in recent years, strive to improve the handling quality of various cases through case evaluation, and seriously standardize the handling procedures and documents. At the same time, in the evaluation content, we should focus on checking the implementation of the rectification of the problems found in the previous evaluation, as well as the implementation of evaluation standards and systems. At the same time, it is necessary to find out the defects in the evaluation standards and systems through evaluation, so as to improve the systems and standards.

Fourth, strict standards and objective evaluation.

For the case evaluation, our bureau earnestly adheres to the unified standard and evaluates it from five aspects: first, it depends on whether the handling procedures are legal, whether the filing, investigation and evidence collection, handling procedures and legal documents are complete, whether they are implemented according to the prescribed procedures, and whether they are overdue; The second is to see whether the facts are clear and whether the evidence is true and sufficient; The third is to see whether the applicable law is correct and whether the implementation is fair and just; The fourth is to see whether the legal documents are standardized and complete, and whether the terms are standardized, accurate and detailed; The fifth is to look at the reflection of the parties and whether the social effect is good. Make an objective and fair analysis of the quality of the case and form a case self-inspection report. Then, the evaluation team of the Municipal Bureau of Justice and the Political and Legal Committee of the District Committee conducted a centralized evaluation. The evaluation mainly introduces the basic situation of the case and the self-evaluation of the case through the case handlers. The evaluation team evaluates the case according to the relevant laws and evaluation standards, discusses it collectively and forms an evaluation conclusion, and confirms the social effect of the case handling through a return visit to the parties to the case.

Fifth, the evaluation results are objective and true.

Through the case quality assessment, the application and acceptance of all kinds of cases comply with the law and the materials are complete; The case-handling personnel perform their duties according to law, and the procedures are legal; Complete collection of evidence materials; The opinions of the authorities were adopted and the case was satisfactorily resolved; In the process of handling the case, the case-handling personnel did not collect the property of the parties and other acts that violated the lawyer's professional ethics and practice discipline, which made the case handling achieve good legal and social effects. In the case of Zeng, due to personal injury, after repeated consultations with the other party failed, legal aid workers made unremitting efforts and rushed to Zhejiang several times, eventually making the victims get compensation and safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of migrant workers according to law. By handling all kinds of cases, the recipients learned to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests by legal means, instead of defending their legitimate rights and interests according to law by means of illegal petitions and disturbances; The problems existing in the past, such as no transcripts of conversations with the parties, simple content of closing reports, and format files to be improved, have been significantly improved. Existing problems: the individual law enforcement documents in the legal aid files are not standardized, and there is no uniform format and paper for the Inquiry Record, so the filing of the files needs to be further strengthened.

Summarizing the case quality evaluation work in recent years, it is found that through the evaluation of law enforcement cases, the basic situation is clarified, the law enforcement experience is summarized, the problems that need to be rectified are found out, and the focus of future work is clarified. The evaluation results show that all administrative law enforcement departments pay more attention to administration according to law, the awareness of administrative responsibility according to law is obviously strengthened, the level of handling cases is improved, the law enforcement behavior is constantly standardized, the quality of law enforcement is constantly improved, and the quality of cases is obviously improved; It can be seen that with the continuous strengthening of administrative law enforcement training and administrative law enforcement supervision, the level of handling cases by administrative law enforcement personnel has been greatly improved compared with the past, and the vast majority of files have clear facts, accurate applicable laws, conclusive evidence and legal law enforcement procedures. The comprehensive evaluation of handling procedures, evidence investigation, handling technology, document making, file filing, system construction and file quality has been improved.

Summary of Case Quality Evaluation of Judicial Bureau 3 2 According to the requirements of the Notice on Carrying out Case Quality Evaluation Activities (Hanzhong Law xx 12), our hospital carefully arranged and used 35 days to make a serious and comprehensive evaluation of all cases concluded in the annual review (execution) of xx. The appraisal summary report is as follows:

I. Organizational leadership

In order to seriously carry out this case quality evaluation activity, it is really based on the principle of seeking truth from facts, fairness and justice, and not going through the motions, so that this case quality evaluation activity can be carried out solidly and effectively. Our hospital has specially set up a "leading group for case quality evaluation activities" with Ren Jizhong, vice president of the hospital, Yang Dajin, member of the hospital party group and vice president, He, member of the hospital party group and head of the discipline inspection team, and Zhang Ming and Yuan Qingfeng, full-time members of the audit committee, to make overall arrangements.

Second, the schedule and method steps

The quality evaluation activity of this case started on xx, and ended on XX 17. * * * is divided into three stages. In the first stage, from X month to X month, the trial business courts of the whole hospital conduct self-examination on the quality of cases and fill in the case evaluation form case by case;

In the second stage, from X to X, all business departments conduct cross-review, and the hospital review leading group conducts key spot checks; In the third stage, from X day to X day, the case evaluation room of the hospital made statistical summary and summary report.

Three. Scope and situation of case evaluation

The scope of case evaluation is all cases reviewed and closed in xx years. The case of execution supervision, mediation (reconciliation, coordination) to close the case, withdraw the case, and other cases that cause the parties to appeal, petition or supervision by the leading organs, are included in the scope of evaluation.

The following seven types of cases are key cases:

(1) A case remanded to a higher court for retrial;

(2) Cases that have been tried, ordered for retrial by a higher court or retried by this court;

(3) Cases that have been retried and commuted after protests by procuratorial organs;

(4) Confirming cases that violate the law or cause state compensation;

(5) Cases that cause major letters and visits;

(six) cases that have exceeded the time limit for trial execution;

(seven) the higher court, the National People's Congress, the leading organs of the Party committee, the deputies to the National People's Congress, and the CPPCC members require review or supervision.

From X month to X month, all courts in the hospital conducted self-examination on all cases concluded in the annual review of xx, and filled in the Registration Form of Case Quality Assessment case by case. The cases evaluated were truthfully filled in according to the evaluation criteria and evaluation registration form of the provincial hospital, and the problems with tendentiousness of the case quality found in the evaluation and the future rectification measures have been reported in writing to the case evaluation office;

From X to X, 10, criminal courts and administrative courts, people's courts and people's courts, leading courts and Wen Chuan courts, Fifth Hospital and Nanle Court, Wang Bo Court and Orange Garden Court conducted mutual investigations on their own self-inspection cases. At the same time, the evaluation leading group of the hospital also sent 10 people to each trial business court, and randomly selected 405 cases for key evaluation according to the ratio of 40% of cases concluded, 100% of cases transferred and 15% of cases withdrawn, in strict accordance with the requirements of Shaanxi Provincial People's Court Case Quality Evaluation Standard (Trial). The problems found in the spot check were sorted out and summarized in time, the weak links were filled, and the rectification was carried out within a time limit. In the third stage, from June 1 1 to June 17, the hospital case evaluation office made statistical summary and summary report.

Fourth, the case quality analysis summary

In xx years, our hospital * * * tried (convened) 2,494 cases of all kinds, except for some procedural and simple cases, 55 cases should be attended, and the actual evaluation cases were 1942, with an evaluation ratio of 94.5%. Among these evaluated cases, there are 708 excellent cases, 9 good cases12 15 qualified cases, accounting for 36.5%, 62.7% and 0.8% of the evaluated cases respectively, and there are no unqualified cases. Defect 1042 cases, accounting for 53.65% of the evaluated cases. The total score of case evaluation is 183752, and the case score is 94.62. Seven cases were added, accounting for 0.36% of the number of cases evaluated.

Among them, criminal cases were closed 160, cases should be evaluated 128, cases actually evaluated 128, and evaluation 100%. Among the criminal cases examined, 48 were excellent, accounting for 37.5%, 73 were good, accounting for 57%, and 7 were qualified, accounting for 5.5%.

Civil and commercial cases were closed 1936, and 1645 should be evaluated, and 1552 were actually evaluated, accounting for 94.3%. Among the civil and commercial cases evaluated, there are 58 excellent cases1case, accounting for 37.5%, 963 good cases, accounting for 62%, 8 qualified cases, accounting for 0.5%, and 2 bonus cases; 52 administrative cases were closed, 52 cases should be evaluated, and 52 cases were actually evaluated, with an evaluation ratio of 100%. Among the political cases evaluated, 38.5% were excellent cases and 32 were good cases, accounting for 6 1.5%.

Of the 346 cases closed, 230 should be evaluated, and the actual evaluation was 2 10, accounting for 9 1.3%. Among the enforcement cases evaluated, 59 cases were excellent, accounting for 28. 1%, and good 15 1 case, accounting for 7 1.9%. Plus five cases.

Five, the case quality tendency problem

Through this case evaluation, it is found that the quality of cases in the whole hospital has been greatly improved compared with that in xx years.

First of all, on the bright side:

1. The trial record and the collegial panel record shall be signed by the members of the collegial panel and the clerk;

2. The divorce judgment case has explained the precautions that you can't get married with others before the judgment takes effect.

Marriage certificate or marriage relationship certificate;

3. Inform the parties of litigation obligations, litigation risks, delivery and acceptance, and complete and standardized procedures for responding to evidence;

4. The judgment document is stamped with the seal "This document is the same as the original";

5. Pay attention to the remarks of the evidence submitter, receiver and date of receipt;

6. Both primary and secondary volumes can be repackaged.

Second, the existing problems and deficiencies

1, filing stage

(1) The trial process management information table is incomplete, so it is impossible to fill it out one by one according to the specific circumstances of the trial, and the phenomenon of missing or under-filling still exists;

(2) At the time of filing, the "sender" and "recipient" columns are still filled with surnames or names (problems found during spot checks have been corrected);

(3) Some copies of evidence submitted at the time of filing the case did not indicate the author or check with the original;

(4) Some printed copies of qi complaints have not been signed or printed by the parties concerned.

2, the main problems existing in the trial stage

(1) Some evidence materials did not indicate the receiving time of the author and the recipient, and the copy of the evidence did not indicate that it was checked with the original, or only indicated on the first evidence who submitted the following pages of evidence, and the copy was the same as the original, which failed to indicate them one by one;

(2) The transcripts are not standardized. Some sentencing transcripts are not written with the names of collegiate bench members and are not signed by collegiate bench staff or clerks;

There is no trial report in individual judgment cases, the collegial panel record is simple, and the trial record is not signed by the clerk;

(3) In some cases, when accepting money and goods, the recipient fails to provide a copy of the ID card;

(4) The facts identified in individual cases are inconsistent with the evidence in the volume. For example, in the trial report and judgment of Jin Jing and Yang Cong's divorce case, it was found that the relationship between husband and wife was not harmonious and disputes continued, but the judgment was not allowed to divorce, but there was no evidence of good or bad feelings between husband and wife in the volume, which made the reviewers feel that the fact finding was contradictory to the judgment result. Some cases tried by default do not pay attention to the verification of the evidence claimed by the claimant, but only take the statement of the claimant as the final basis;

(5) Individual cases tried by default were not published in the People's Court Newspaper;

(6) In some cases, the authorization of the entrusted agent is unclear, only the authorized agent is indicated, and there is no specific authorization content, which does not conform to the provisions of judicial interpretation.

(7) Individual loan cases have not recovered the original IOUs;

(8) The marriage certificate of individual divorce cases has not been recovered, and it is forbidden to divorce or mediate a good marriage case, and the marriage certificate has not been copied before it is returned to the parties.

3. Judgment documents:

(1) The number used in the judgment document is not standardized, and Arabic numerals are mixed with Chinese numerals in terms of numerical value and size, year, month, day and time, which shows that the judgment document is not serious and rigorous;

(2) The facts identified in the judgment documents are too simple and the reasoning is not thorough, especially the focus of the dispute between the two sides is poorly summarized, the reasons for the judgment are unclear, the punctuation marks in the judgment documents are improperly used, the documents are not strictly checked, and there are many words or missing words. Some work carelessly, making legal documents and even miscalculating the amount of cases. For example, in the execution case of personal injury compensation in Hu Xinyue, it was ruled that the arrears of 1997 1 yuan were mistaken as 19 17 yuan;

(3) Individual judgment documents are not stamped with the seal "This document is the same as the original" or the stamped position is not standardized.

3. Summary of case quality evaluation of the Bureau of Justice. Judicial trial is the lifeline of people's courts to serve people's livelihood, and the quality of cases is the lifeline of people's courts' trial work. In recent years, courts all over the country have evaluated whether legally effective judgments and enforcement cases have been strictly implemented from the aspects of relevant procedures, entity handling and the quality of legal documents. Combined with the case evaluation in our hospital, this paper discusses some superficial views on how to innovate the case evaluation mechanism in our hospital.

First, the status quo of case evaluation in our hospital

Since X year, our hospital has conducted diversified evaluation of concluded cases, and implemented a monthly evaluation system of case quality and a quarterly spot check system of archived cases;

In X years and X months, mutual evaluation of cases between courts was carried out;

The activities of "10,000 cases evaluation" and "special case evaluation" have been carried out since X year. Conduct self-examination according to the four grade standards of excellent, good, qualified and unqualified, implement a three-person scoring system for one case and one table, and establish a case evaluation work ledger. The self-evaluation rate was 99%. Summarize and analyze the problems found in the review in a timely manner, notify the responsible leaders, judges, members of the collegial panel and the clerk in writing to make corrections within a time limit, and "hold accountable" the organizers of serious mistakes and informed criticism;

Evaluate and analyze typical cases of excellent cases, establish typical cases, and summarize good practices and experiences.

Second, the lack of case evaluation in our hospital

(1) It is difficult to coordinate all kinds of relations in the evaluation, and the evaluation work has great resistance. In the evaluation work, some evaluators are afraid of offending people and difficulties. In addition, many judges do not understand and have resistance to the case evaluation, and even simply think that the case quality evaluation is to find faults, which makes it difficult to carry out the evaluation smoothly. In the organization and management of the evaluation work, the supervision power of the trial management in our hospital is mainly exercised by the trial supervision court, the filing court and the discipline inspection team. There is no special management department, and the actual operation is not in place. In the evaluation, the same case is often handled by multiple courts and judges, and there will be mutual shirking of responsibility after mistakes, which will bring great obstacles to the evaluation work.

(two) the supervision and management of the quality of the trial did not extend to the supervision before and during the case. Case quality evaluation is an effective means of trial quality supervision and management. However, in practice, as a kind of post supervision, the supervision of the trial and execution process has been neglected, and the trial supervision and management has not been extended to cases before and during the trial, and the functions of prevention, discovery and timely correction of trial management have not been fully exerted.

(3) The incentive and guarantee mechanism is not perfect. Lack of incentive mechanism for "excellent" cases and outstanding individuals can not fully mobilize the enthusiasm of judges to support the evaluation work. In addition, there is no corresponding incentive and guarantee mechanism for evaluators, which affects the enthusiasm of evaluators to varying degrees.

(4) The transformation and utilization of evaluation results are insufficient. Judging from the development of marking work in recent years, although there is a summary and analysis after each marking, it only reminds and urges the judges in good faith, and still stays at the level of education and improvement, and has not yet risen to the level of promoting the overall quality, so it cannot actively promote the overall quality of cases and the improvement of the court image.

Third, do a good job in evaluating the quality of cases in grass-roots courts.

(1) Establish a scientific concept of case quality and lay an ideological foundation for improving case quality. We should fully understand the importance of trial supervision and management and case quality evaluation, establish a scientific and correct concept of case quality, change the traditional concept of "correcting mistakes" and "finding fault" in case quality evaluation, and improve the quality of case quality evaluation with three principles: first, the principle of neutrality, the most important of which is to emphasize justice and realize the expectation of equal evaluation of the same problem with unified standards. The second is the objective principle, which requires a true test of the quality of the case based on the principle of seeking truth from facts. Third, the principle of initiative, focusing on the timely summary and analysis of evaluation results, from superficial simple summary to systematic thinking, and can actively turn evaluation results into practical experience.

(two) to build a scientific and reasonable case quality evaluation mechanism. First of all, we should create a quality evaluation model with full participation and joint management. Paying attention to the positive role of all police officers, under the premise of giving full play to the role of the evaluation department, allowing other courtrooms to share certain supervision and management rights reasonably, and giving the majority of judges the right to participate in supervision and management is conducive to strengthening judges' understanding of evaluation work and reducing evaluation resistance. Secondly, establish an integrated quality evaluation mechanism before, during and after the event. It is necessary to promote trial supervision and realize the transformation from focusing on trial results to focusing on all aspects of filing, trial and execution;

We should adhere to the dynamic monitoring before, during and after the trial. Third, improve process management and build a network evaluation platform. Make full use of network resources to realize dynamic process management and continuously improve the quality and efficiency of trial management.

(3) Establish a scientific incentive and evaluation mechanism. First of all, according to the results of case quality evaluation, the "case pacesetter" and "mediation expert" in our hospital were evaluated, which stimulated the judges' desire for evaluation and passion for Excellence. Secondly, the evaluation results are regarded as the important evaluation contents of each court, and the quality performance files of judges' cases are established as an important basis for the evaluation of judges by the court and the evaluation, meritorious service and promotion of judges. Third, evaluate the evaluator's performance separately. Formulate relevant assessment methods, so that appraisers are less disturbed by human relations and concentrate on quality assessment.

(four) pay attention to the application and transformation of results, and continue to improve the case quality notification and tracking and verification mechanism. The problems found in the evaluation should be analyzed and summarized in time, fed back to relevant departments and contractors, and the transformation of quality evaluation results should be strengthened. For the cases where mistakes are found in the evaluation, it is suggested that senior judges should be organized to consult the case, identify the key issues, formulate specific solutions, and solve the backlog of letters and visits through case evaluation, so that the cases can be really settled. While paying attention to the improvement of trial quality, we will constantly improve the case quality notification and tracking and verification mechanism, conduct spot checks and verification according to the rectification feedback, and at the same time strengthen the statistical analysis of case quality, regularly notify the case quality, and promote the department case handlers to continuously improve the level and quality of handling cases.

;