Lan, “judges can manipulate the trial procedure to ensure efficiency and convenience and turn the trial into a mere formality.”31 Death penalty cases are also likely to be considered by the court’s adjudication committee. The court president will decide, at the request of the collegial panel, if death penalty cases should be passed to the adjudication committee for discussion and decision. Committees have an odd number of members and their decisions can override those taken by the collegial panel. Recent reforms have established specialist criminal adjudication committees to “discuss and decide major or difficult cases” (Organic Law of the People’s Courts 2018. Art.36). In future, death penalty cases should no longer be heard by judges lacking criminal law experience. Chinese legal scholars speculate that specialist criminal committees may be more cautious in applying the death penalty since research suggests that they are less supportive of the death penalty than their civil law counterparts. However, the new collegial panels with a majority of lay assessors, it was suggested, may be more punitive. Expedited procedures Expedited procedures to the trial process were introduced in the 2018 revisions to the Criminal Procedure Law. Expedited procedures may, in principle, be used for capital crimes although the main target is less serious offences. It is too soon to tell what effect these new procedures may have on the number of executions and whether the procuratorate will press for a two-year suspended death sentence or a life sentence as the alternative to immediate execution. The lack of transparency in death sentences will make this very difficult to research. Many lawyers and scholars worry that the expedited procedures will increase the risk of miscarriages of justice as criminal suspects will be encouraged to confess in the expectation of a speedier resolution of their case and lesser punishment. At the heart of the expedited procedures is the principle of ‘admission of guilt and an acceptance of punishment’ (renzui renfa). A key concern is the voluntariness of any admission of guilt and informed consent to the new procedures. The mentally ill, blind, deaf and juveniles are exempted from the procedures, but, given the problems outlined in Chapter 2, there are well-founded concerns that the procuratorate may not make concessions for those not obviously displaying signs of mental illness. Provisions for expedited procedures require investigators to inform suspects of their procedural rights and the legal consequences of “admitting guilt and accepting punishment” (CPL.18 Art.173). The law requires a suspect who agrees to renzui renfa to sign a plea affidavit in the presence of their defence lawyer or a duty lawyer and the procuratorate. There are concerns that suspects will be placed under pressure to sign the plea affidavit and lawyers are worried that they will not be given the opportunity to advise their clients effectively. There is a high risk that the presence of lawyers at the signing of the plea affidavit will be a tick box rather than meaningful procedure. Court proceedings will be limited with no investigation by the court or debate at trial, although the judge must be satisfied that the admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment in the written plea affidavit is lawful. There are real worries that it will be difficult for lawyers or the court to reopen questions of guilt if such an affidavit has been signed following inadequate legal advice or understanding. 31 Lan Rongjie. ‘A False Promise of Fair Trials: A Case Study of China’s Malleable Criminal Procedure Law.’ Pacific Basin Law Journal Vol. 27. 2011. 37