A woman and her mother in Beijing were subjected to domestic violence by her husband and were punished with 3 days of administrative detention after retaliating. After administrative reconsideration, the reviewing authority, in accordance with the legislative spirit of the Anti Domestic Violence Law, comprehensively considered the cause of the case, the fault of both parties, and the harmful consequences caused by the woman's illegal behavior, and concluded that her behavior falls under the circumstances of particularly minor circumstances as stipulated by law and should not be punished according to law. This case was selected as a typical case for implementing the newly revised Administrative Reconsideration Law in the seventh batch recently released by the Ministry of Justice. The relevant person in charge of the Ministry of Justice pointed out that the revised Administrative Reconsideration Law, which will be implemented from January 1, 2024, stipulates that for situations where the content of administrative actions is inappropriate, the basis is not correctly applied, the facts are unclear, and the evidence is insufficient, and the administrative reconsideration organ has investigated the facts and evidence, changes can be made directly, reflecting the more efficient hierarchical supervision function within the administrative system. It is an important institutional design for handling administrative reconsideration cases and resolving administrative disputes with high quality and efficiency, and also an objective requirement for playing the main role of administrative reconsideration in resolving administrative disputes. In domestic violence, can it be determined that there was legitimate defense? In February 2022, a woman named Yang and her husband named Tong had a conflict due to a family dispute. Tong physically assaulted Yang and his family, and during the conflict, Yang also physically assaulted Tong. After identification, the injuries suffered by Yang, his mother, and Tong were all minor injuries. In January 2023, a public security bureau in a certain district of Beijing issued an "Administrative Penalty Decision", determining that Yang had beaten Tong due to a family dispute, and the circumstances were relatively minor. According to Article 43, Paragraph 1 of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law, Yang was given an administrative detention of 3 days. Yang believes that he has been subjected to domestic violence by his husband for a long time. On the day of the incident, he fought back to prevent Tong from committing domestic violence again, which was a legitimate defense and did not exceed the necessary limit, and did not constitute an illegal act. On March 7, 2023, he applied for administrative reconsideration to the district government. The administrative reconsideration institution considers that the focus of the dispute in this case lies in whether the applicant's actions constitute justifiable defense and whether administrative penalties should be imposed. Regarding whether Yang constitutes justifiable defense, according to the Interpretation on Relevant Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishments by Public Security Organs (II), the act of stopping illegal infringement in order to avoid the infringement of ongoing violations of public security administration does not constitute a violation of public security administration. This regulation is the specific application of the legitimate defense system in the field of public security management and punishment. If both parties have a dispute over trivial matters and cannot exercise restraint, resulting in a fight, and one party takes action first and continues to harm while the other party tries to avoid conflict, and the other party retaliates, causing harm to the first person to take action, the retaliating party should generally be considered as legitimate defense. The administrative reconsideration institution believes that in this case, the existing evidence can prove that Yang did indeed beat Tong, but there is no evidence to prove that Yang made efforts to avoid or downgrade the conflict. Therefore, it is difficult to determine that Yang's behavior constitutes legitimate defense. New evidence confirms the circumstances of domestic violence, and the administrative review agency has changed the administrative penalty. After examination, the administrative review agency found that a district people's court in Beijing had made a civil ruling prohibiting Tong from committing domestic violence against Yang, and prohibiting Tong from harassing, assaulting, or threatening Yang and his family. Based on the evidence in this case, it can be concluded that during the existence of the marriage relationship between Yang and Tong, Yang was a direct victim of domestic violence and had already experienced or faced the real danger of domestic violence. Based on the legislative spirit of the Anti Domestic Violence Law, and taking into account the cause of the case, the fault of both parties, and the harmful consequences caused by Yang's illegal behavior, the administrative reconsideration authority believes that Yang's behavior falls under the category of particularly minor circumstances stipulated in the Public Security Administration Punishment Law and should not be punished according to law. The public security authority has imposed an administrative detention of three days on her, which is an incorrect basis for application. According to the revised Administrative Reconsideration Law, the administrative reconsideration authority has decided to change the administrative penalty of Yang's 3-day administrative detention to no administrative penalty. When the Ministry of Justice released this typical case, it pointed out that this case arose from a family dispute and later evolved into a public security case. It is a microcosm of many cases involving domestic violence and marital conflicts, with the characteristics of long time, deep conflicts, and strong concealment. How to accurately characterize and correctly apply the law is a difficult problem faced by administrative organs. In this case, the administrative reconsideration authority followed the principle of proportionality in imposing penalties, accurately determined that the original penalty was not correctly applied based on the comprehensive evidence of the entire case, and directly changed it to not imposing administrative penalties on the applicant in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Reconsideration Law. This resolved the administrative dispute fairly and effectively, avoided procedural idling, and complied with the legislative spirit of the newly revised Administrative Reconsideration Law, which prioritizes the application of change decisions. It has strong reference value for handling similar cases. The application of change decisions in administrative reconsideration requires a greater sense of responsibility and stronger ability. Change decisions were already stipulated in the Administrative Reconsideration Law before revision, but there is a problem of low usage in practice, which to some extent affects the effectiveness of administrative reconsideration. Yang Weidong, Vice President of the Administrative Law Research Association of the China Law Society and Professor at the Rule of Law Government Research Institute of China University of Political Science and Law, pointed out that the newly revised Administrative Reconsideration Law highlights the main channel role of administrative reconsideration in resolving administrative disputes, placing change decisions at the forefront of the administrative reconsideration decision system and providing greater space for the application of change decisions. However, in order for administrative reconsideration agencies to accurately apply change decisions, it requires more time and effort, as well as greater sense of responsibility and stronger capabilities to support it. ”In Yang Weidong's view, the typical significance of this case lies not only in demonstrating that the positive stance and attitude of the administrative reconsideration authority are the prerequisite for playing the role of a change decision, but also in fully reflecting that comprehensive examination and comprehensive determination of the case are the key to accurately applying the change decision. Yang Weidong introduced that the revised Administrative Reconsideration Law stipulates that there are three situations in which the administrative reconsideration organ applies the change decision: first, "the facts are clear, the evidence is conclusive, the application basis is correct, the procedure is legal, but the content is inappropriate"; Secondly, the facts are clear, the evidence is conclusive, and the procedures are legal, but the basis has not been correctly applied; Thirdly, if the facts are unclear or the evidence is insufficient, the administrative reconsideration authority shall investigate the facts and evidence. On the surface, it is difficult to make a change decision based on situation three. In fact, the application of the first two situations also requires the premise of clear facts and conclusive evidence. ”Yang Weidong stated that in practice, accurately applying change decisions has certain complexity and difficulty. This case involves the second scenario, where the application of the change decision involves evidence and factual determination, followed by qualitative analysis and application of law. The administrative reconsideration institution maintains a proactive stance and attitude towards resolving disputes, which facilitates the application of the change decision. (New Society)