China weighs curbs on police use of designated residences in criminal cases
Updated: 52 minutes ago
BEIJING | 2 November 2026
China’s national legislature began a first reading of amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law in Beijing on 2 November. Under the proposal as described by Xinhua, police would no longer be able to place a suspect or defendant under surveillance at a location of their choosing solely because the person lacks a fixed residence. They would have to use another measure permitted by law. At stake are where a person may be held and how lawyers and relatives can reach them. The bill has not passed. The material available does not establish what would happen to a separate exception for national security and terrorism cases. [1][2][3]
The 55-article bill went before the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress at its session scheduled for 2–6 November. China Daily updated its English-language report at 16:48 on 2 November. Xinhua’s more detailed Chinese report, published at 18:42, described the proposed treatment of people without a fixed residence. The two accounts corroborate the submission of the bill; the specific change concerning designated residences is reported by Xinhua. At publication, the independent legislative tracker NPC Observer still listed the first-reading text as pending. [1][3][4]
The current law separates eligibility for residential surveillance from the choice of premises. Under Article 74, a person who meets the conditions for arrest may qualify for surveillance instead in circumstances including a serious illness that leaves them unable to care for themselves, pregnancy or breastfeeding their own baby, or being the sole carer of someone unable to look after themselves. Article 75 then addresses the location: ordinarily, it is the person’s home. Lack of a fixed residence is neither an offence nor, by itself, sufficient grounds to impose residential surveillance. It affects the choice of premises once the measure has been selected. [2][5][6]
Police procedural rules give ‘fixed residence’ a geographical meaning that is easy to miss. The question is whether the person has a lawful place to live in the city or county where the investigating authority is based. Someone with a home elsewhere need not have a fixed residence there. The proposed change therefore matters beyond the population usually described as homeless. In an investigation away from home, a local address can determine which provision the police invoke to designate premises. Its absence says nothing in itself about the likelihood of destroying evidence or absconding. [6][7]
Article 75 also offers a route unrelated to whether the person has an address. In suspected national security or terrorism offences, the police may use a designated residence if surveillance at home could impede the investigation and the public security authority one level higher approves. The statute bars use of a detention facility or premises dedicated to handling cases. The first route asks whether there is a local home; the second asks whether using the home could obstruct an investigation into one of two categories of offence. The published account describes a change to the former. Its silence on the latter establishes neither repeal nor retention unchanged. [2][5][8]
Nor would everyone without a local address necessarily be released. Xinhua describes a switch to other lawful compulsory measures, with no promise that every alternative would be less restrictive. Liu Renwen, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the agency that misuse of designated residences had harmed justice in some cases; he saw the proposal as narrowing their use. On 26 October, NPC Observer had identified abolition or substantial curtailment as a demand in the reform debate. An option advocated before the session is not an enacted provision. [2][4][9]
For a family, knowing which measure has been imposed is different from knowing where a relative is and being able to ask a lawyer to check on them. The current law normally requires family notification within 24 hours of designated-location surveillance, unless notification is impossible. In an earlier review of China, the UN Committee against Torture noted that the legislation it examined required notification without specifying that relatives must be told the grounds or the location. Its concern was that abuse might go undetected where families could not locate a relative and a lawyer could not reach them promptly. [5][10][11]
China has formally disputed that criticism. In 2018, UN human rights experts asked Beijing about authorisation, notification and access to counsel. The Chinese government replied that designated premises had to provide ordinary living and sleeping conditions and could not be premises used for handling cases. It said families had to be notified as soon as an obstacle to notification disappeared, that individuals could retain counsel, and that procuratorates supervised the legality of decisions and their execution. It denied that the practice caused secret disappearances. That reply concerned the system then in place, not the present bill or its effects. [10][12]
The procedures had already drawn scrutiny before this bill. In April, the rights group Safeguard Defenders said it had examined departmental provisions from 2025 and interviewed several lawyers in China. Its reading was that a shorter initial period could be extended only with further approval; it questioned whether predominantly internal checks could prevent abuse. The South China Morning Post had also reported tighter requirements for approval and supervision. These accounts concern rules for handling cases. Requiring renewed approval after a shorter first period is legally distinct from removing a statutory ground for placing someone at a designated address. [13][14]
Michael Kovrig, a Canadian formerly detained in China, described in The Wire China on 25 October how isolation and repeated interrogation in designated residences could wear a person down. In earlier briefing material for Parliament, the Canadian government recorded its objection to the lack of consular access to Kovrig and Michael Spavor immediately before their trials and to the exclusion of Canadian officials from the proceedings. That record establishes Canada’s objection over access. It is not independent corroboration of every interrogation Kovrig describes, or evidence that every person held under the procedure has the same experience. [15][16]
A second figure that needs context is 48 hours. China Daily reported that the draft would require detention centres to ensure that defence lawyers see a person in custody within that period after requesting a meeting. Article 39 already requires a centre to arrange a meeting promptly, within 48 hours, when counsel produces the required credentials and authority to act. The issue is how to secure the meeting in practice; the deadline itself is not new. The current law separately requires investigators’ permission during investigations into national security and terrorism offences. The full proposed wording on that exception could not be verified. [3][5][17]
The proposals also concern victims. According to ECNS, victims, their legal representatives or close relatives who for specified reasons have not retained a representative could apply for legal aid under the law. China Daily also reported that interviews with children who are victims or witnesses should, where possible, be completed in one sitting to avoid the harm of repeated questioning. One proposal concerns representation; the other concerns how evidence is collected. Neither is a proposal to lower the standard of proof for conviction. The official account describes both effective prosecution and protection of participants’ rights as objectives. [1][3][18]
The law dates from 1979 and was amended in 1996, 2012 and 2018. This bill also covers the seizure, freezing and disposal of property and proceedings involving foreign parties. It is not a stand-alone bill on detention. For an individual whose liberty is restricted, the important questions are the permitted grounds, the approving authority, the information available to family members and the means of challenging a refusal of access to counsel. The number of articles in a bill does not reveal whether safeguards will be easier to use. [1][4][5][18]
By publication on 2 November, no statement specifically assessing the first reading had been located from the UN experts or the rights group cited here. Nor was a full first-reading text available to this report for comparison with the current statute. What has changed is that legislators have begun considering a bill that would alter the treatment of people without a fixed residence. Whether it reduces isolation will depend on the text and on how other compulsory measures are used. There is no basis in today’s record for reporting a change of measure or a release in any individual case. [2][4][10][12][13]
Sources
Comments