Courts should know claiming compensation is not blackmail

A gavel in a court. [Photo/IC]

ON FRIDAY, GUANGDONG PROVINCIAL HIGH PEOPLE'S COURT acquitted Guo Li, who had been convicted and imprisoned for the crime of blackmail in January 2010 after he asked for 3 million yuan ($434,973) in compensation from a dairy company whose milk was found to have been contaminated with melamine, which he said was responsible for his 2-year-old daughter's kidney problems. Beijing News comments:

Why did the local court find Guo guilty in 2010? Its verdict, which was posted online, listed three reasons: First, he intended to illegally occupy others' property. Second, he threatened to tell the media the whole thing. Third, he asked for a huge amount of money.

Some reports also said he was found guilty because he had already received 400,000 yuan in compensation from the dairy company and agreed to let the matter rest there. But afterwards he regretted settling for so little and demanded more.

Such a verdict does not stand the test of time. As his daughter was a victim of the company's unsafe product, Guo had the right to ask for reasonable compensation. According to the Food Safety Law, a consumer can claim compensation if a company's food products prove to be unsafe. His daughter suffered from kidney problems after drinking the latter's melamine-contaminated milk and her treatment was expensive. He had the right to ask for compensation to cover her treatment and recuperation.

More important, as a citizen he had the right to tell the media about what had happened to his daughter. Several domestic dairy companies were found to have included melamine in their products in 2008, and both the government and the media had reported that. So how could Guo be considered to be making a "threat" when he said he would tell the media?

The judiciary is bold enough to redress its own errors by acquitting Guo on Friday. Although its acquittal came too late, as Guo had already served his sentence of five years in prison, it is still big progress.

Some people have suggested the local court might have hoped to protect the company by finding Guo guilty, but who knows what was behind the case then. Judges and procurators nationwide should be reminded that they should only judge a case according to the law.