Thread by @lizzlaw_

I’ve been in Dalian today for the retrial of Robert Lloyd Schellenberg, my first ever Chinese court experience, equal parts fascinating and mind boggling.

Thread on my thoughts. Story in tweet attached.

https://twitter.com/afp/status/1084818568456404992

I started out as a crime and courts reporter in Singapore, so am not familiar with the inside of a courtroom. No phones, no recorders... it’s standard procedure.

But we’re told that in Chinese courts, no pens or notebooks are allowed either. Neither are tissues, receipts or random hair ties you’ve forgotten are in your trousers.

The latter I found out when having to embarrassingly empty my pockets at security.

Which means you have to rely on nothing but your own memory. Or the official transcript.

But it’s a rare opportunity nonetheless, China rarely allows foreign media into court so it was a good chance to see the system up close.

So Schellenberg was brought in, and lawyers from both sides take their seats before we all stand for the three judges, quite standard thus far. The trial begins.

The prosecution start with an opening statement. Then, Schellenberg is asked to make a statement too, before his defence lawyers. And this is a recurring theme: prosecutors, defendant, defenders (as they call them here)

Which throws me off slightly because why would you conduct your own defence when you have lawyers? The defendant seems to be a big part of the Chinese court process but grateful for clarity for Chinese law experts on here

Then comes the scoldings: defence lawyers for repeating qns, defence for sounding too aggressive, prosecution for cutting Schellenberg off, Schellenberg for going off on a tangent.

I am reminded of Chinese classes in school.

In the cases I’ve covered, lawyers have a basic strategy, have a line of questioning and would ask witnesses the same qn in 20 different ways.

But in today’s encounter, trying to set out one’s case merited a scolding. As did repeating questions.

Also, the prosecution came prepared with PowerPoint slides of evidence. Text message extracts, pictures of the drugs, a graph showing the links in the syndicate.

These were helpfully flashed on 2 TV screens. PowerPoint slides!

But even slides weren’t enough for the crowd — nearly at full capacity of over 50, according to court — many of whom were napping when hearing got technical.

Most were members of public, some Canadian officials and 3 foreign reporters.

Hearing started at 8am and went on till nearly 8.30pm, with one lunch and one dinner break, 2 loo breaks.

Nonetheless, still a slog. Also, no notebooks so we’re desperately trying to remember every detail

And quite as suddenly as it began, it’s over. Schellenberg has given his “final statement” and the court is ready to hand down a verdict.

Court is adjourned for an hour and we’re to come back at 8pm

When the session starts again, the judge reads out the verdict. “Find guilty”, “reject the defendant’s explanation and defence”, “key member of international drug smuggling syndicate”...

Then, we’re all told to stand.

“In accordance with the laws of the PRC... you are hereby sentenced to death.”

A hush falls over the courtroom. There’s a pregnant pause before the translator collects herself (they’re language professors) to translate. And then it’s over.

It’s the second time I’ve ever witnessed the sentence handed down. Doesn’t make it any easier.

But Schellenberg seemed to handle it well. Asked if he understands what it means, he nods.

And that was that. He’s told of his avenues of appeal and before I regain my breath, it’s over and everyone RUSHES for the door — public who can’t wait to get out, @evadou, Danxu of @zaobaosg & I running for our phones. The world needs to know.

And so here I am three hours later in my hotel lobby still trying to send over video on crawling internet while trying to make sense of the day.

For at least one family, it’ll take a lot more than a tweet thread to figure out what exactly happened.