scholarly journals Grounds for the cancellation or amendment of court decisions in criminal cases on appeal

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-72
Author(s):  
Aleksandr M. Panokin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
Separate Control ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The article analyzes the legal regulation and practice of applying the grounds of appeal. The positive and negative sides of the statutory recognition of the grounds of appeal are revealed. The author comes to the conclusion that when establishing such grounds in the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the rules of formal logic and systematization of legislation were violated. The grounds of appeal do not form a unified system, they do not cover all possible violations that entail the delivery of unjust court decisions. As a result of the study, it can be affirmed that the absence of appeal grounds will protect the rights of the individual in criminal proceedings to the maximum extent by maximizing the extension of the subject of the appeal and verification of court decisions, and it will provide ample opportunity for the court of appeal to identify and eliminate any violations committed. In addition to this, it is necessary to increase the requirements for the reasoning of appeals, representations of professional participants in criminal procedures and the quality of the justification and motivation of decisions by courts of appeal. The absence of the grounds of appeal makes it necessary to provide a detailed answer to the arguments of the subjects of the appeal set out in the complaints, as a result of which the decision of the court of appeal becomes not only legal, reasonable, motivated and fair, but also convincing. Equally, the absence of such grounds guarantees the independence of judges and their high professionalism, as well as the demand for creative potential when reviewing court decisions. In turn, the consolidation in the criminal procedure law of various grounds for reviewing court decisions that have entered into legal force will make it possible to limit separate control and verification stages of the criminal process from each other.

REVIEW OF CASES ON NEWLY OPENED AND NEW CIRCUMSTANCES: UNFA-VOURABLE DISTINCTIONS OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
pp. 105-114
Author(s):  
Alia R. Sharipova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Administrative Proceedings

The article deals with the comparative analysis of the procedure and grounds for reviewing court cases under new and newly discovered circumstances in criminal and arbitration, civil and administrative proceedings. The author proceeds from the idea of common fundamental beginnings of justice in general, and therefore, all types of judicial activities - including an extraordinary review of judicial decisions, which have entered into legal force. The branch specifics of specific procedural institutions should have a special explanation based on the specifics of the branch itself. The author thinks that there is no key basis for reviewing the case on the newly discovered circumstances in the criminal trial and attempts to replace it with one of the new circumstances. In this part, the current criminal procedure law differs unfavourably from the Soviet Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) of the RSFSR of 1960 - among the newly discovered circumstances, there are no those that could indicate a miscarriage of justice made out of direct connection with someone's criminal actions. In the current CPC of the Russian Federation, the list of newly discovered circumstances is closed, and the list of new circumstances that entail the review of the court decisions is, on the contrary, open. Examples of academic papers and administrative enactments justifying such a replacement are given. The author gives his arguments against it and proposes to change the list of grounds for revision, referring to the regulation in other procedural branches, historical and foreign experience. A significant procedural difference of the considered type of extraordinary review of cases in criminal proceedings from other types of proceedings is found. It is the need for applicants to request a review from the prosecutor, not from the court. The greatest objection is the non-alternative procedure: the prosecutor is a participant in the criminal proceedings on the part of the prosecution, he is responsible for the undoubted proof of the charge, which is the basis of the sentence, the abolition of which is requested by another interested person. The negative impact of the prosecutor's mediation between the complainant and the court on access to justice and its quality is argued. It is pointed out that there is no need for prosecutorial checks to resolve the issue of judicial review of the case. The analysis of judicial statistics in different branches of justice shows that criminal proceedings differ sharply by the negligible number of judicial review cases due to newly discovered and new circumstances. The article calls into question the ability to explain this fact by a higher quality of sentences in criminal cases in comparison with other court decisions in other court cases.

scholarly journals Ethic principles of using genetic information during criminal jurisdictional activity

2021 ◽  
Vol 136 (3) ◽  
pp. 86-97
Author(s):  
O.I. Andreeva ◽  
◽  
O.A. Zaitsev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Information ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Data Bases ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Genome Information

The article considers how the principles of respect for the honor and dignity of the individual and privacy are implemented in the use of genetic information in criminal proceedings. The authors analyzed existed tendencies, directed to increase the extent of federal basis of genetic information due to extension of the list of subjects, liable to compulsory genetic registration, legal regulation of mechanism of using genetic information during criminal trial. The authors concluded that indiscriminate extension of subjects, liable to compulsory genome records, covered by accused (suspected) persons in a committing of a crime, or deposing genome information of acquitted persons in data bases, or deposing genome information of persons, whose criminal cases were closed due to rehabilitative circumstances, do not meet requirements of the protection of their rights and legal interests. It is proven that the production of genetic expert evidence should be proceeded based on court judgment, secured with additional guarantees that this genetic information won’t be revealed out of the investigation of a concrete criminal case. The method of obtaining biometrical materials should include following actions: informing a person about the purpose and means of its obtaining, his/her rights, his/her duties, his/her responsibilities, access conditions to obtained materials, reindefication and restrictions of anonymity or privacy. The storage procedure of genetic information should guarantee the protection of the private life of a person; provide controlled access to it and to biometrical materials by authorities.

CURRENT ISSUES OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MINORS IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN REALITY

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 152-164
Author(s):  
Svetlana V. Verkhoturova ◽  
Oksana V. Pavlenko
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Made In

This article examines the current theoretical and practical issues of criminal proceedings against minors in the light of recent changes in the criminal procedure legislation. The research was conducted using formal-logical and dialectic methods, as well as the comparative-legal method when analyzing criminal and legal proceedings against minors. The authors conclude that a number of existing criminal procedure norms regulating the preliminary investigation and consideration of criminal cases in court against minors do not meet international standards and require further improvement. This article draws attention to the procedural errors of investigators (inquirers) and judges that are allowed in the process of investigation and consideration of criminal cases in court in relation to minor suspects, accused persons, defendants. The lack of sufficient legal regulation in the criminal procedure law is called the main reason for the mistakes made in the criminal proceedings against minors. In order to solve the identified problems, the authors propose to make appropriate additions to the current criminal procedure law.

scholarly journals The authority of Criminal Cassation Court as part of Supreme Court about sending criminal proceeding from one trial to another

2019 ◽  
pp. 51-61
Author(s):  
N. Syza
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Proceeding ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
Court Of Appeal

One of the guaranties of justice by competitive trial is determined in art. 34 Criminal Procedural Code the procedure of sending criminal proceeding from one trial to another in connection with don`t fall within the jurisdiction or another legal circumstance which make impossible justice in this trial or can influence on judge`s impartiality and equity and for the purpose of providing for promptness and effectiveness in criminal proceeding. The purpose of article is: to reveal the authority of Criminal Cassation Court as a part of Supreme Court based on analysis of criminal procedural law and practice their using about sending criminal proceeding from one trial to another. For the results of research was concluding that the authority of Criminal Cassation Court as a part of Supreme Court about sending criminal proceeding from one trial to another steam from norm in art. 34 Criminal Procedural Code which provide for grounds and procedure for deciding whether to refer criminal proceedings to another court. If in a court of appeal or in a petition of a party or a victim the circumstances, which cannot be grounds for referring criminal proceedings to another court, are stated, or the request is made for resolving issues beyond its powers, stipulated by art. 34 of the Criminal Procedural Code, the Criminal Cassation Court as a part of Supreme Court refuses to grant the application (petition). Generalized the most common in judicial practice in the Criminal Cassation Court as a part of Supreme Court instances of refusal in satisfied submission (petition) about sending criminal proceeding from one trial to another, in particular if: appellant don`t have the authority; it`s matter of bringing criminal proceeding together and determining jurisdiction; substantiates the existence of circumstances that may be grounds for the removal of judges, but not for the transfer of criminal proceedings in accordance with art. 34 of the Criminal Procedural Code. Installed that Criminal Cassation Court as a part of Supreme Court at proceeding application (petition) about sending criminal proceeding from one trial to another refuses to satisfy them even in case where the issue of jurisdiction of criminal proceeding has already been resolved by the cassation court before, on similar grounds, justifying it in accordance with the requirement of p.5 art. 34 of the Criminal Procedural Code, disputes over jurisdiction between the courts are not allowed. Was figuring out the legal positions Criminal Cassation Court as a part of Supreme Court about limit in view to considering in art. 34 Criminal Procedural Code; questions about sending criminal proceeding from one trial to another which has already been submitted to a certain court, having carried out during the court residence. Having proposed for broad consideration of the matter, having entrusted the court to provide the Criminal Procedural Code with special procedures sending of criminal proceeding from one side to the last in the stage of pre-trial consideration and review of court decisions.

scholarly journals Necessity to Reject Pre-Trial Inquiry as a Procedural Form of Investigation

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (9) ◽  
pp. 80-92
Author(s):  
O. A. Malysheva
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Independent Form ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

A comparative legal analysis of procedural forms of inquiry and preliminary investigation leads to a conclusion about their similarity, as well as the similarity of procedural statuses of an investigator and interrogator (a person conducting an initial inquiry). This shows that the State distributes forces and resources in the field of criminal justice irrationally. At the same time, the existence of two similar forms of investigation does not lead to an improvement in the legality and quality of criminal cases investigation. On the contrary, this contributes in some cases to their deterioration (reasonable timing of proceedings in criminal cases, compensation of damage caused by crimes to victims), as confirmed by the data provided in the paper. The consolidation of similar procedural forms of investigation in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation proves that the national historical experience of the organization of investigation of crimes under the 1864 Charter of Criminal Proceedings is ignored. This means an unreasonable refusal to reform criminal proceedings, the necessity and directions of which were identified by the 1991 Concept of Judicial Reform of the RSFSR . The consequences are manifested in the narrowing of procedural guarantees of the right to protection of persons whose criminal cases are investigated in the form of an inquiry; in the forced violation of the rule of law by interrogators during investigation of criminal cases when initiating a criminal case on a non-obvious crime; in delaying proceedings in criminal cases initiated and investigated initially by interrogators and then for a number of reasons referred to investigators for further investigation, etc. These problems cannot be solved by constantly improving the legal regulation of the procedural form of inquiry. The written above testifies futility of the procedural form of inquiry, justifies the necessity of its elimination from the Russian criminal proceedings as an independent form of investigation.

scholarly journals Formation of Real Legal Regulationin the Practice of Criminal Procedure Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-130
Author(s):  
V S Shadrin
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law

The article explains the recognition of the criminal procedure law as the only source of criminal procedural law, examines the content of legal regulation in criminal cases as part of legal norms, legal relations and individual requirements, demonstrates how the model of criminal proceedings, fixed in the criminal procedure law, turns into a real criminal -process law.

On the Consideration of a Criminal Case Against a Minor by Jury

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 90-96
Author(s):  
E. V. Markovicheva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Case ◽  
Jury Trial ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Scientific Discussion ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Minor

The functioning of the jury in Russia has demonstrated not only effectiveness, but also a number of problems that need to be resolved. Such problems include the personal jurisdiction of criminal cases by jury. The article reveals the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation regarding the right of minors to trial a criminal case in a jury. The approaches to solving this issue that have developed in the judicial practice of individual foreign states are analyzed, the main directions for further scientific discussion regarding the right of minors to a jury trial are outlined. The purpose of the article is to disclose various approaches to the administration of criminal justice in the relations of minors with the participation of lay judges. The theoretical basis of the study was Russian and foreign scientific works in the field of criminal procedure law, devoted both to the consideration of criminal cases with the jury, and the specifics of juvenile criminal proceedings. Using the comparative legal research method has allowed to reveal various approaches to the access of minors to jury trials in individual states. In Russian legislation and judicial practice the question of the right of minors to have a criminal case against them considered by a jury remains unresolved. The position of the Constitutional Court of Russia regarding the jurisdiction of such criminal cases is also controversial. The experience of foreign countries indicates that there is no universal way to ensure the right of a minor to a proper court. This issue is decided depending on the type of criminal process, the presence or absence of specialized juvenile courts. Any direct borrowing in this regard cannot be considered effective, but a generalization of foreign experience can create the necessary basis for optimizing both the work of the jury and criminal proceedings against minors.

SHORTENED TIMELINE OF APPEAL AGAINST INTERIM COURT DECISIONS MADE AT A PRE-TRIAL STAGE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
pp. 38-49
Author(s):  
Polina O. Gertsen ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Medical Organization ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article deals with the problem of classifying interim decisions among those that are appealed in a shortened timeline, and determining the list of such decisions, as well as the closely related problem of determining the rules for calculating such a shortened timeline. Currently, the Criminal Procedure law provides for the possibility of appealing a number of interim decisions made at a pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings before the final decision Moreover, for appealing some interim decisions at a pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings, a general period of appeal is provided - 10 days from the date of the court decision, or the same period from the date of serving with a copy of the decision the person who is in custody, while for others a shortened timeline is 3 days from the date of the decision. Meanwhile, it follows from the literal interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation that within a shortened three-day period, court decisions on the election of preventive measures in the form of a ban on certain actions, bail, house arrest, detention, the refusal to apply them or extend their application can be appealed. At the same time, such a conclusion is not confirmed either in the positions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation or in judicial practice. Based on the analysis of the criminal procedure law, the position of the Supreme and Constitutional Courts of the Russian Federation, scientific literature and practice, several problems are highlighted. Thus, the author states the discrepancy between the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation when it comes to establishing the terms for appealing the court decision on a preventive measure in the form of bail. In addition, there is no single criterion for establishing shortened deadlines for appealing interim decisions, and there-fore, the list of such decisions requires analysis. In addition, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not contain a norm that determines the rules for calculating daily terms. The author formulates several proposals for amendments. It is proposed to determine the criteria for a shortened appeal timeline as the restriction of the constitutional right to liberty and immunity of a person that requires the immediate judicial review of the lawfulness of such a decision. It is also necessary to correct the phrasing of Article 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which defines the procedure for applying a preventive measure in the form of bail, and establish the rule that appeal against such an interim court decision is filed according to the rules of Chapter 45.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code within ten days. The list of court decisions which must be appealed in a shortened timeline must be expanded by a court decision on putting a suspect or an accused into a medical organization providing medical or psychiatric care in hospital settings for forensic examination, as well as the extension of a person’s stay in a medical organization. In addition, the author has analyzed the approaches to the calculation of daily terms and proposes to amend Part 1 of Article 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation by establishing a single procedure for calculating daily terms, which does not take into account the day that served as a starting point of the term.

On the quality of pre-trial proceedings

2019 ◽  
pp. 391-399
Author(s):  
Igor Vladimirovich Ovsyannikov
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Crime Detection ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Special Order ◽  
Objective Research

We consider the problem of the pre-trial proceedings quality and the impact on it of the shortcomings of the regulation of the procedural order of consideration of crimes reports, the special trial order, as well as the practice of their application. We characterize the dualistic nature of the previously conducted reform of the procedural order of crimes reports and strengthening the rule of law at the stage of criminal cases, which, at first glance, seems to be a solution to the problem of crime detection. We designate the expediency of refusal in the legislative order from the production of investigative actions during pre-investigation inspections and from the procedural terms of such inspections. Referring to the practice of courts of a special order of court decision, we note that the simplification and acceleration of criminal proceedings is permissible, but the existing rules of a special order should not be interpreted as a rejection of impartial and objective research by the court of the evidence available in the case, even if indirectly – on the case materials. It is stated that the shortcomings of the special order regulation and the practice of its application have a negative impact on the quality of both judicial and pre-trial proceedings. In addition, we propose scientifically based measures aimed at correcting the above shortcomings.

scholarly journals The Stage of Assessing the Validity of the Complaint (Presentation) in Continuous Cassation

2020 ◽  
pp. 66-70
Author(s):  
Mikhail S. Spiridonov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legislative Changes ◽  
And Shifts

With the introduction of continuous cassation in criminal cases on 01 October 2019, the content of the verification of the validity of the cassation complaint and presentation has changed. The science of criminal procedure has been faced with a new problem: to assess the effectiveness of legal regulation, in which the validity of the cassation complaint or presentation is verified directly at the hearing, not at the preliminary stage. The object of this research is criminal procedural relations that develop in the implementation of the norms of criminal procedure law that regulate cassation proceedings in criminal procedure. The research focuses on the norms of the constitutional and criminal procedure law of the Russian Federation, domestic and foreign legislation, generally recognized principles and norms of international law governing cassation proceedings, provisions of the science of criminal law and criminal procedure. The aim of the research is to reveal the essence of the introduced legislative changes concerning the stage of verification of the validity of the cassation complaint or presentation, to develop proposals for improving the legislation. The methods of analysis, synthesis and comparison were applied to determine the procedure for the verification of the validity of the cassation complaint or presentation by the court of the cassation instance. The comparative legal method was employed to study foreign forms of cassation proceedings. The formal legal method was used to analyze the content of the texts of normative legal acts regulating cassation proceedings. The research resulted in the following conclusions. The lack of a stage for assessing the validity of the cassation complaint (presentation) and the grounds for its transfer to the cassation court excessively strengthens the revision principle and shifts the balance towards the task of identifying and eliminating violations of the requirements for the final court decision. The solution to this problem is possible through the introduction of written cassation proceedings carried out by a panel of three judges, which will consider the issue of admissibility and validity of the complaint (presentation).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document