scholarly journals Waiver of a Counsel (for the Defense) in a Criminal Procedure

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 29-32
Author(s):  
Vladimir D. Postanyuk ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Specific Time ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Relevant Article ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Complete Rejection ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

Provision to the suspect and defendant’s constitutional right to protection is an essential principle of criminal proceedings (article 16 of the code). In the code there are some articles that illuminate the mechanism of participation of the defender in criminal proceedings, this includes: defining the range of persons who can be advocates, fixing specific time, the participation of counsel in the case, an order of protection and other issues. But it is the question of the implementation of the right of the accused (suspect) to refuse to defend and participate in the case of a lawyer that is of fundamental practical and legal importance. There are two possibilities that should be distinguished: on the one hand, complete rejection of the defender in general, and on the other hand, rejection of a specific defender. The refusal of a lawyer in general is provided with a number of restrictions, which are listed in the relevant article of the criminal procedure code. in all other cases, the rule applies that it is possible to refuse to help a lawyer at any time during the criminal proceedings. This article is devoted to the consideration of these issues.

scholarly journals On Criminal Procedure and Criminalistic Measures of Counteracting Crimes Against Legal Entities

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-105
Author(s):  
Olga Aivazova ◽  
Galina Vardanyan ◽  
Irina Smirnova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Entities

The article discusses some aspects of proving in cases of crimes against legal entities. The criminalistic description of the victim represented by a legal entity determines specific details of applying criminalistic and criminal procedure measures aimed at the identification, investigation, detection and prevention of such crimes. Under the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, one of the elements of ordering criminal proceedings is the protection of rights and legal interests of organizations that became victims of crimes. Part 1 of Art. 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation details this guideline for the first time by giving legal entities, viewed as independent subjects of criminal procedure legal relations, the right to be recognized as victims of criminal actions if the crime inflicted damage on their property or business reputation. Nevertheless, the imperfections in the regulation of legal entities’ participation in criminal proceeding, and the insufficient attention to the specifics of realizing their rights and legal interests in comparison with the physical persons of a similar procedural status give rise to numerous problems. The complex of such problems has a negative impact on the effectiveness of investigating this category of crimes and, as a consequence, on the ability of criminal proceedings to produce the intended result. The literal interpretation of Part 1, Art. 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation points out that the consequences of such crimes must include the infliction of two types of damage simultaneously — «to property and to business reputation», which can hardly be considered a good de­finition from the standpoint of juridical technique. Quite naturally, the investigation and court practice shows that law enforcers, while collecting proof on the character and size of damage inflicted on legal entities as a result of a crime, usually limit themselves to proving material damage, and even this damage is not proven in full (the common omission being losses of expected income). As for the damage inflicted on business reputation of a legal entity, its establishment during criminal proceedings is still problematic and, in practice, there is usually a gap in proving it. The authors point out that incomplete character of evidentiary information regarding the infliction of damage on the business reputation of legal entities is inadmissible and present their recommendations for resolving this problem, including the use of specialist knowledge and the improvements in the tactics of specific investigatory actions aimed at obtaining criminalistically relevant information on the case.

scholarly journals Jawność rozprawy głównej a gwarancje przewidziane w Konstytucji

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-237
Author(s):  
Radosław Koper
Keyword(s):  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Fundamental Change ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Main Trial ◽  
Criminal Proceeding ◽  
The Public ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Right

The principle of openness, as one of the foremost principles of criminal proceedings, is realised above all during the main trial. The amendment act of law to the code of criminal procedure issued on 10 June 2016 introduced model changes in this regard. The article is devoted to a discussion of mainly these changes in the context of their consistency with the Constitution. The first change has to do with the fact that the public prosecutor has the right to express his or her objection toward the holding of a trial in camera, while such an objection is binding for the court. This regulation is a source of reservations of constitutional nature, for it violates the constitutional right to a fair adjudication of a case by the court. The second fundamental change consists in the establishment, as a principle, of audio-visual registering of the court session by the representatives of media outlets. In these terms, a critical analysis should be conducted upon the removal of the condition of the respect of the important interest of the participant of a criminal proceeding. However, a basically positive evaluation was received by the extension of the scope of the openness of the main trial, expressing a thesis about the constancy of this regulation with the Constitution.

Suspicion and Charge Statuses in Criminal Remedial Activities

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (7) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Елена Сопнева ◽  
Elena Sopneva
Keyword(s):  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The Other ◽  
Theoretical Development ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Foreign Experience ◽  
Procedural Time ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

The author analyzes legislative, theoretical and practical levels of suspicion and charge enforcement. The author identifies problems of understanding the concepts of suspicion and charge: during theoretical and legislative classification of these categories the author identifies the absence of sound differences in their essence. The author considers foreign experience in realization of the suspicion and charge statuses in criminal remedial activities. The author comes to the conclusion that on the one hand, the suspicion, due to its procedural demand and importance has the right for independent theoretical development and independent legal regulation and on the other hand, it can be considered as an alternative to charge, since the latter cannot be considered to be the only possible basis for a transfer of a criminal case to a court. The author also accepts the variant when suspicion takes principal procedural time and the charge is defined at the end of criminal proceedings when the case is transferred to a court to be considered on the merits.

The Confessions Rule and the Charter

2010 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 517-546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamish Stewart
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Trial Judges ◽  
Right To Silence ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

Abstract The confessions rule—the requirement that the Crown prove the voluntariness of the accused’s statements to persons in authority—is a well-established rule of criminal evidence and is closely connected with the constitutional principle against self-incrimination that it structures. The confessions rule is thus a natural candidate for recognition as a principle of fundamental justice under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, there are two distinct routes by which the confessions rule might be constitutionalized. Under the “rule of evidence” approach, the confessions rule would be recognized as an aspect of the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial. Under the “rights violation” approach, the conduct of the state in obtaining an involuntary statement would be treated as a violation of the accused’s constitutional rights. In R. v. Singh, despite having previously adopted the “rule of evidence” approach, the Supreme Court of Canada applied the “rights violation” approach and linked the confessions rule very closely to the constitutional right to silence. In so doing, the Court conflated the distinct protections offered by the right to silence on the one hand and the confessions rule on the other, particularly when Singh is read in light of other recent cases that appear to weaken the confessions rule. Fortunately, the Court’s recent decisions concerning the confessions rule may also be read as instances of appellate deference to trial judges’ factual findings on voir dires. Thus, they leave room for the recognition that neither the right to silence nor the confessions rule is reducible to the other, and that each has a distinct role to play: the right to silence protects the accused’s decision to speak at all, while the confessions rule concerns the accused’s motivations for speaking as he or she did.

scholarly journals Compensation of property damage caused to non-participants in criminal procedure in order of rehabilitation

2020 ◽  
pp. 221-230
Author(s):  
V. V. Muryleva-Kazak
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Entities

The article discusses the issue of the legal nature of the right to compensate harm, the effectiveness of usage of the criminal procedure mechanism for its protection and the reasonableness of the inclusion of relevant in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.Based on the analysis of judicial practice, it is concluded that the courts have difficulties in determining the appropriate way to protect the right to compensate harm caused in the course of criminal proceedings and the delineation of competence between arbitration courts and courts of general jurisdiction, which leads to a violation of the applicants’ right to access to justice and reduces the effectiveness of judicial protection.In addition, it is concluded that the criminal procedure form is not adapted to the consideration of civil disputes on compensation for harm, the author names the impossibility of collecting lost profits as one of the factors that reduce the effectiveness of the use of the criminal procedural mechanism for protecting property rights.Based on the interpretation of the criminal procedure rules provided in the article, the author concludes that legal entities have an opportunity to use criminal procedure remedies for violated property rights in more cases than individuals, which violates the principle of equality before the law and the court. The article provides ways to solve the identified problems.

scholarly journals Appropriate subject of obtaining evidence of a criminal offense in the opinion of the court

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 224-228
Author(s):  
A.-M.Y. Anheleniuk
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Evidence Collection ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Operational Unit

The article considers the collection of evidence by the prosecution, because it is in this order that the evidence base of criminal proceedings is most often formed. Thus, the prosecutor, investigator (investigator) acting under Articles 36, 40, 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, as well as an employee of the operational unit pursuant to Article 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine on behalf of the investigator or prosecutor have the right to collect evidence. The purpose of the article is to study the affiliation of the subjects of evidence collection as part of the procedural form of the criminal process of Ukraine, taking into account the analysis of court decisions, namely the assessment of the evidence base as a basis for deciding on the merits of criminal proceedings. Cases of involvement of an improper subject in the pre-trial investigation, which are common and typical, are systematized. There are two types of improper subjects within the investigative (search) or procedural actions, namely the subject: 1) is not appointed in the manner prescribed by law, although according to current legislation according to the list of its powers may be appropriate; 2) does not have the authority under the law to make a specific decision or to conduct investigative (search) or procedural actions. An analysis of court decisions according to which courts provide an assessment of the procedural activities of the subjects of evidence collection in criminal proceedings at the stage of pre-trial investigation, including their relevance and admissibility. Thus, attention is paid to the assessment of courts on the legality of the presence of persons during investigative (investigative) or procedural actions; the correctness of fixing such a presence. In addition, the situations of appointment of relevant subjects in criminal proceedings to fulfill their powers are considered. It is proposed to supplement the first part of Article 236 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine with a provision that clarifies the grounds for the stay and authority of the employee of the operational and investigative service during the search.

scholarly journals Application of preventive measures in the criminal process: current issues

2020 ◽  
pp. 122-126
Author(s):  
V.S. Suslova ◽  
O.I. Tyshchenko
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters

The article is devoted to the research of topical issues of application of the institute of preventive measures in criminal proceedings on the basis of the analysis of normative provisions of the current criminal procedure legislation and law enforcement practice. It is emphasized that the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine 2012 (hereinafter - the CPC of Ukraine) provides for an updated system of preventive measures, unlike the CPC of 1960. Attention is drawn to the degree of restriction of human rights and freedoms in the application of preventive measures. The purpose of this article is to analyze topical issues regarding the grounds and procedural order for the application of preventive measures in criminal proceedings and to offer optimal ways of solving them. The author has come to the conclusion that at this stage criminal procedural legislation in terms of regulation of preventive measures needs improvement. The article investigates the types and reasons for choosing preventive measures, which determined the author's position on the need to consolidate at the legislative level the definition of the term "preventive measures". The scientific positions of different authors on the issues related to the application of preventive measures are analyzed, in particular, the views of the processional scientists on the concept of "preventive measures". This made it possible to demonstrate the existence of a rather wide range of scientific proposals for defining this concept at the legislative level. Attention is drawn to the fact that, in practice, the right of a person to liberty and personal integrity when choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention is quite often unduly restricted. The materials of the case law, legal provisions of the ECtHR, Letter of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine on Civil and Criminal Matters "On Some Issues of Preventive Measures During Pre-trial Investigation and Proceeding in the Procedure Provided by the Criminal Procedure" Code of Ukraine of 04.04.2013 are used.

scholarly journals The Concepts of Truth and Fairness in Thai Criminal Procedure

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-89
Author(s):  
Alexandre Chitov
Keyword(s):  
Legal Education ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Procedural Fairness ◽  
The Other ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights

This study looks at the principles that shape the structure of the whole of Thai criminal procedure law. It examines how the search for truth is attempted to be reconciled with the idea of a fair trial or procedural fairness. The conflict between the search for truth on the one hand and guaranteeing procedural rights of the accused on the other is particularly problematic in the Thai context. Thai law affirms that some evidence cannot be admissible if it is obtained by a violation of certain procedural norms. At the same time, the law allows judges to admit some unlawfully obtained evidence in the interest of justice. The conflict between various legal norms cannot be solved without permitting judges to exercise broad discretion in striking the right balance between discovering the true facts and protecting the rights of the accused. Thai legal education and practice does not allow a broad judicial discretion in accepting or rejecting evidence on the grounds that it was obtained unlawfully. As a result, there is an attempt to build a sophisticated system of rules to accommodate the interests of justice and fairness in different situations. This system, however, lacks clarity and consistency.

scholarly journals Resumption of closed criminal proceedings: problematic issues

2021 ◽  
pp. 176-186
Author(s):  
Vasyl Zhmudinskyi
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Decisions ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The Right

The article deals with problematic issues related to the resumption by a prosecutor of criminal proceedings closed by the decision of an investigator. It is proved that the investigator's decision to close criminal proceedings can be appealed to the investigating judge or prosecutor within ten days of receiving a copy thereof. However, the prosecutor, to monitor the legality and validity of the investigator's decision, can independently reverse the decision to close the criminal proceedings. At the same time, an important point in this situation is that the legislation sets a time frame for the prosecutor, namely twenty days, from the moment he receives the decision from the investigator, during which he can check the decision to close the criminal proceedings for its legality and make a decide on its reversal. Attention is drawn to the fact that prosecutors do not always adhere to the specified twenty-day period and groundlessly reverse legal decisions to close criminal proceedings, referring to Part 6 of Article 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which defines the powers of the prosecutor to reverse illegal and unjustified decisions of investigators and subordinate prosecutors within the terms of pre-trial investigation. It is argued that the prosecutor's right to reverse an illegal and unjustified decision to close criminal proceedings is not included in the terms of pre-trial investigation because it is already outside it, and therefore if the prosecutor reverses the specified decision after the expiration of the twenty-day period, it is a violation of Part 6 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. It is noted that to stop the repeated criminal prosecution of participants in criminal proceedings, it is advisable to appeal the prosecutor's decision to resume criminal proceedings to the court, even though that the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine does not a relevant provision in this regard. It is proved that if the court satisfies the complaint and reverses the prosecutor's decision to cancel the decision to close the criminal proceedings, further implementation of the pre-trial investigation will be impossible and the resumed criminal proceedings will be closed. Proposals have been made to improve the criminal procedure legislation in terms of ensuring the right of participants in criminal proceedings to appeal in court against the prosecutor's decision to reverse the decision to close criminal proceedings. Keywords: criminal proceedings, prosecutor, pre-trial investigation, investigator, decision, court.

scholarly journals Procedural analogy: independent principle of criminal proceedings or the element of legality

2020 ◽  
pp. 113-126
Author(s):  
Nadiia Drozdovych
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Historical Aspect ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Scientific Results ◽  
The Right ◽  
Principle Of Legality

The article is devoted to the study of procedural analogy place in the system of criminal proceedings principles in connection with the statutory provisions of Part 6 of Art. 9 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The historical aspect of the analogy institution normative consolidation in the domestic criminal process is given, which indicates that the institution of analogy in the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code has not been directly enshrined since the 1920s. At the same time, the science justified its necessity and admissibility in the criminal process; scientific results in this area are also given in the article. The existence of two types of analogy is stated: “analogies of right” and “analogies of law”, in connection with which the doctrinal provisions on the applicability of any of them in the modern criminal process are analyzed. The article also provides examples to use the institution of analogy in the judicial practice of the court of cassation. It has been established that despite the legislative technique, the doctrinal provisions and judicial practice state the admissibility of two types of analogy in the domestic criminal process. In this regard, the use of the term “procedural analogy” is justified as the most correct and such, which in its content covers the notion “analogy of the right” and the "analogy of the law". Since the legal norms on procedural analogy are placed within the framework of CPC article on the principle of legality, its relationship with the procedural analogy is determined. To this end, doctrinal statements about the concept of principles of criminal proceedings, author's positions on their classification as well as the criteria for their separate definition are given. Based on the above material, it was concluded that the procedural analogy is not an independent principle of criminal proceedings. The fact that the provisions of Part 6 of Art. 9 of the Criminal Procedure Code placed in the content of the principle of legality, suggests that the procedural analogy is one of the ways to achieve and implement this principle. Key words: analogy of law, analogy of right, procedural analogy, general principles of criminal proceedings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document