On the evening of November 22, 2020, Ms. Zhang, the owner of a restaurant in Zibo, Shandong Province, fought back after being assaulted by an intoxicated customer. However, her actions were deemed “mutual affray”, resulting in a five-day administrative detention and a 200-yuan fine. The customer, citing the public security authority’s decision, demanded 40,000 yuan from Ms. Zhang as compensation for his alleged “injuries”… This incident prompted Ms. Zhang to seek clarity on whether her self-defense was legally justified and how the nature of the conflict should be properly determined.
After a protracted legal process involving first-instance and second-instance court trials, protests by procuratorial organs and a retrial by the court, the case was finally rejudged as legitimate self-defense. This case not only concerns individual rights but also vividly illustrates the core legal principle that “law should not yield to lawlessness.”
Historically, in public security cases, the simplistic determination that “any act of fighting back constitutes mutual affray” hindered the practical application of the principle that “the law does not require the impossible”. In Ms. Zhang’s case, the initial law enforcement and judicial processes overlooked her urgent situation during the unlawful assault, conflating her defensive actions with those of the assailant. Such “equivocal law enforcement” blurred the line between justice and injustice, eroding public trust in the legal system’s impartiality.
Today, significant positive changes are occurring in judicial practice. From the “Kunshan Anti-killing Case” to that of the Zibo restaurant owner , judicial authorities are increasingly breaking away from traditional mindsets, recognizing legitimate self-defense from a more rational and humane perspective. In Ms. Zhang’s case, the procuratorial organ’s in-depth investigation raised doubts about the cause of the assailant’s injuries. The court, during the retrial, considered the evidence and ruled that Ms. Zhang’s counterattack—aimed at stopping the unlawful infringement—did not constitute a violation of public security regulations.
Furthermore, the Draft Amendment to the Law on Public Security Administration Punishments of the People’s Republic of China, scheduled for further deliberation in June this year, includes new provisions on legitimate self-defense. This development underscores that the principle of “law not yielding to lawlessness” should serve as a fundamental standard for law enforcement and judicial activities, applicable to both criminal and public security cases. It calls on law enforcement and judicial personnel to abandon the simplistic approach of “punishing both parties equally” and accurately determine what constitutes legitimate self-defense.
As Professor Guo Zhilong from China University of Political Science and Law pointed out, the rejudgment of this case has two significant positive implications:
Firstly, it guides law enforcement agencies to routinely consider the possibility of legitimate self-defense by the party fighting back, thereby expanding the application of the self-defense system in law enforcement practice.
Secondly, it actively encourages citizens to safeguard their own and others’ legitimate rights and interests, fostering a social ethos where individuals are brave in upholding justice and protecting their lawful rights.
In this case, the judge examined three key aspects:
