individual judges. Nevertheless, successive CCP directives are clear that the Party retains leadership over the legal system. The Party asserts its influence through appointments, Party committees and policy guidance (2019 Party regulations on political-legal work) as well as institutional arrangements, notably judicial adjudication committees. The priority for the Party is ‘stability maintenance’, ensuring not only public order, but also respect for the institutions of the Party-state. Judicial adjudication committees (shenpan weiyuanhui), usually comprising the court president, vice presidents and senior judges, have been a major topic of debate among Chinese legal scholars discussing the idea of a fair trial. The committees, which exist at each of the four levels of the court system to discuss important and difficult cases, exemplify the way Chinese courts decide matters institutionally. They are criticised for their lack of transparency and Party links. Public Hearings and Transparency The principle of a public hearing is established in the Chinese Constitution and criminal procedure law. The law also provides for exceptions in cases involving state secrets, juvenile defendants and individual privacy. National security concerns are very broadly conceived and the police have the power to determine whether a case involves state secrets. Information on scheduled court proceedings is supposed to be available to the public, but prospective observers are usually required to register and obtain an observer pass, allowing officials to act as gatekeepers to the courts. Although non-Chinese citizens have the right to attend trials, in practice foreigners rarely gain access, except by special arrangement. National security concerns are very broadly conceived and the police have the power to determine whether a case involves state secrets. In 2013, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) launched its online judgements database (see Additional Resources). This has become a valuable resource for researchers, although many Chinese and overseas legal scholars have criticised the database for its “missing cases”. The 2018 Opinion on Judicial Transparency sets out broad areas where courts should release information, but also provides for situations where the release of information is not permitted or “unsuitable for being made public”. One poorly understood category of secret information is trial work secrets which likely include the discussions of judicial adjudication. Court Decision-Making China’s courts are organised hierarchically and geographically, by province, under the Supreme People’s Court. Capital crime cases are not heard at the lowest level of basic people’s courts. Where the procuratorate determines that a case may result in a life sentence or the death penalty, the case will be indicted in the intermediate people’s court. Both the defence and the prosecution may appeal decisions of the first instance court to the higher court, located at the provincial level. The decision of 35