SOME FEATURES OF THE INTERROGATION JUVENILES IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mykhailo Denysovskyi ◽  
◽  
Inna Tomchuk ◽  
Victoria Slotіuk ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Practical Experience ◽  
Individual Characteristics ◽  
Theoretical Development ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Specialized Education ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Subject ◽  
A Minor ◽  
Effective Result

The article considers some features of interrogation of a minor (victim, witness, suspect) in criminal proceedings and its legal settlement in accordance with the current criminal procedure legislation. The issues of participation of a teacher, psychologist and doctor (if necessary), as well as the procedure for their involvement in the interrogation of minors in criminal proceedings were studied. The analysis of mistakes made by investigators during the interrogation of minors is carried out. Depending on their age, minors (victims, witnesses, suspects) have certain psychological characteristics that must be taken into account during their interrogation in order to obtain truthful testimony about the circumstances of the criminal proceedings. On the basis of the conducted scientific research it is concluded that to achieve an effective result during the interrogation of a minor (victim, witness or suspect) is possible with a comprehensive approach to its psychological, age, mental and individual characteristics, as well as serious preparation of the investigator or prosecutor, investigative action. Proposals for improving the current legislation are proposed, which will help to resolve the issue of interrogation of juvenile victims, witnesses and suspects during the pre-trial investigation and to eliminate the gaps and contradictions in the legislation. In particular, when choosing a teacher or psychologist, it is proposed to take into account practical experience and specialized education, as well as to give preference to the teacher with whom the minor has contact, and in the absence of trust - a psychologist, and be sure to involve a psychologist and psychiatrist. on mental disorder or lagging behind in mental development. It is seen that the interrogation of a minor in court is the subject of further theoretical development and requires a separate research and search for ways to improve existing criminal procedure legislation to ensure the rights and legitimate interests of minors in criminal proceedings during their interrogation in court.

scholarly journals PROCEDURAL FEATURES OF INVESTIGATORS (SEARCH) ACTIONS AS MEANS OF COLLECTING EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JUVENILES

2020 ◽  
pp. 400-407
Author(s):  
К. С. Рябченко
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Psychological Characteristics ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Subject ◽  
A Minor ◽  
Procedural Rights ◽  
Material Evidence ◽  
Factual Data

The relevance of the article is that evidence in criminal proceedings is the most important part, which is carried out in the manner prescribed by law by the investigator, prosecutor, investigating judge and court with the participation of other participants in criminal proceedings to collect, verify and evaluate factual data (evidence) to establish the reality, substantiate the conclusions and decisions taken. The procedural form of proof is determined by its content. In essence, proving includes cognitive, communicative, witnessing, and mental activity. The first element of the process of proving is the collection of evidence, which consists in identifying sources and carriers of evidentiary information, obtaining, seizing material evidence, fixing, fixing in the statutory procedural form of factual data. One of the most effective procedural ways of gathering evidence is investigative (search) actions. The aim of the work is to analyze the current criminal procedure legislation and the position of scholars on the theory of criminal procedure on the procedure for conducting investigative (search) actions during the investigation of criminal offenses committed by minors. The article is devoted to the study of procedural features of investigative (search) actions with the participation of a minor. Problems were clarified and proposals for their solution were proposed by making changes and additions to the criminal procedural legislation to ensure the realization of procedural rights and legitimate interests of the juvenile. It is concluded that the conduct of investigative (search) actions as a means of obtaining evidence in criminal proceedings against minors are based on the characteristics of the subject of such proceedings - minors. In order to ensure the realization of the procedural rights of a minor, it is proposed to enshrine in the CPC of Ukraine certain provisions that will formulate an order that least disrupts the normal lifestyle of a minor and will correspond to his age and psychological characteristics.

scholarly journals On the improvement of work management in authorities of the prosecutor's office on consideration of complaints of the parties to criminal proceedings against actions (or inaction) and decisions of the investigator and the prosecutor

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Popov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Single Instance ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Work Management

This article raises the questions on the improvement of work management in the prosecutorial branches on consideration of complaints of the parties to criminal proceedings against actions (or inaction) and decisions of the investigator and the prosecutor. Analysis is conducted on the existing in the prosecutor’s office procedure of pretrial dispute, which legislative consolidation is associated with usage of the term “superior prosecutor”. The subject of this research is the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, executive documents of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation and prosecutor's offices of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as scientific literature on the topic at hand. The conclusion is made that the current legislation and the established law enforcement practice assume on the recurrent appeal on the same instance of violation of law within a single prosecutorial branch, and thus do not effectively protect the rights and legitimate interests of the parties involved in the criminal procedure sphere. For this reason, the author makes recommendations on the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation aimed at adjustment of the procedure of consideration of complaints of the parties to criminal proceedings, which would ensure their resolution within the framework of a single prosecutorial branch in a single instance.

scholarly journals TRANSFORMATION OF SCIENTIFIC IDEAS ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF EVIDENCE IN RUSSIAN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 881-885
Author(s):  
V.A. Sementsov ◽  
V.A. Tsatsuro
Keyword(s):  
Modern Science ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Subject ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Scientific Ideas

The subject of proof is a scientific category that has historically been represented. Modern science of criminal procedure, accumulated knowledge about the sphere of evidence, including its subject, and the ongoing modernization of criminal procedure law allow us to look at the subject of evidence from a new perspective when assessing its content and main features. According to the authors, the subject of proof, taking into account the purpose of criminal proceedings, stipulated in art. 6 code of criminal procedure, allows to significantly adjust its definition, pointing out the components of his circumstances, as the impact on constitutional rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of participants of criminal proceedings and other involved in the field of entities.

CONCEPT AND CONTENT OF A RECONCILIATION AGREEMENT IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OF UKRAINE

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariia Sirotkina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Main Attention ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of

The article is turned out to a scientific search for the concept of "a reconciliation agreement between the victim and the suspect or accused" through the study of the essence of reconciliation and role in criminal proceedings thereof. The author notes that criminal procedural law (until 2012) had been proclaimed another approach to reconciliation between victim and suspect, not involved a dispute procedure as a conflict, the result of which can be reached by compromise and understanding through reconciliation. It is stated that one of the ways to resolve the legal conflict in committing a criminal offense was the opportunity to reach a compromise between the victim and the suspect (the accused) by concluding a reconciliation agreement between them, provided by the Code of Сriminal Procedure of Ukraine (2012). The main attention is placed on the shortcoming of the domestic criminal procedure law which is the lack of the concept of "a reconciliation agreement between the victim and the suspect or the accused", which can be eliminated only through examining the essence or legal nature of reconciliation in criminal proceedings. Taking into consideration the current legislation and modern views on the institution of reconciliation in criminal proceedings, the author's definition of the concept of "a reconciliation agreement" is proposed. Thus, “The conciliation agreement is an agreement in criminal proceedings concluded between the victim and the suspect or the accused person on their own initiative in relation to crimes of minor or medium gravity and in criminal proceedings in the form of private prosecution, the subject of which is the compensation of harm caused by wrongdoing or committing other actions not related to compensation for the damage that the suspect or the accused is obliged to commit in favor of the victim, in exchange for an agreed punishment and sentencing thereof or sentencing thereof and relief from serving a sentence with probation, as well as the statutory consequences of conclusion and approval of the agreement".

scholarly journals Prohibition of interrogation of notaries as witnesses in criminal proceedings

1970 ◽  
pp. 345-349
Author(s):  
Ulyana Polyak
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
Notary Public ◽  
Made In

The current criminal procedure law of Ukraine stipulates that a witness is obliged to give a true testimony during pre-trial investigation and trial, however, the legislator made an exception for this by specifying the categories of persons who have been granted immunity from immunity, ie they are released by law. testify. The article deals with the problems of law and practice regarding the prohibition of the interrogation of a notary as a witness in criminal proceedings and the release of him from the obligation to keep the notarial secret by the person who entrusted him with the information which is the subject of this secret. The notion of notarial secrecy is proposed to be changed, since the subject of this secrecy is not only information that became known to the notary public from the interested person, but also those information that the notary received from other sources in the performance of their professional duties, as well as the procedural activity of the notary himself, is aimed at achieving a certain legal result. The proposal made in the legal literature to supplement the CPC of Ukraine with the provisions that a notary is subject to interrogation as a witness on information that constitutes a notarial secret, if the notarial acts were declared illegal in accordance with the procedure established by law The proposal to increase the list of persons who are not subject to interrogation as witnesses about the information constituting a notarial secret is substantiated, this clause is proposed to be supplemented by provisions that, apart from the notary, are not notarized, other notarials, notaries as well as the persons mentioned in Part 3 of Art. 8 of the Law of Ukraine "On Notary". Amendments to the current CPC of Ukraine by the amendments proposed in this publication will significantly improve the law prohibiting the interrogation of a notary as a witness in criminal proceedings, as well as improve certain theoretical provisions of the institute of witness immunity in criminal proceedings.

Termination of Criminal Proceedings in Public Criminal Cases by Courts of First Instance Under Art. 24, Para. 1, Item 5 of the Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure and Its Compliance with European Union Law

De Jure ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Debora Valkova-Terzieva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Subject

The subject of this research is a specific prerequisite for the termination of criminal proceedings in public criminal cases, regulated in Article 24, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure. This analysis was necessitated by the fact that the European Union had introduced certain obligations for the Member States.

REVIEW ON THE MONOGRAPH OF OLEKSANDR TORBAS �DISCRETION IN THE CRIMINAL PROCESS OF UKRAINE: THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATION AND PRACTICE OF IMPLEMENTATION�

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 147-150
Author(s):  
Iryna Hloviuk ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Theoretical Justification ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Current Period ◽  
Legitimate Interests

Current period of development of the legal system of Ukraine is characterized by variability of legislation that regulates, in particular, organization of judicial system and implementation of criminal proceedings. Unfortunately, criminal procedure legislation is no exception, given how many changes and additions have been made to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine since its entry into force in 2020. Undoubtedly, like any other codified legal act, CPC of Ukraine in modern conditions cannot be unchanged, given the dynamics of public relations, the provisions of international law, decisions of ECtHR and number of attempts to solve identified problems of its application. Difficulties of criminal procedural law enforcement are manifested in such an area as the use of discretion of authorities in criminal proceedings, although without it application of legislation is ineffective. At the same time, lawful discretion in criminal proceedings should not turn into its opposite � arbitrariness, which will already violate rights and legitimate interests of individuals and legal entities. In criminal proceedings, given the imperative method of legal regulation and possibility of various coercive measures, including those related to the restriction of constitutional human rights, this issue is of particular importance, given, inter alia, that prosecution�s discretion applies within non-adversarial procedure, and the CPC of Ukraine does not always provide for the possibility of appealing such decisions in court. The peer-reviewed monograph consists of four chapters, which contain 10 sections. Structuring of the monograph is logical; the author analyse problems of discretion from questions of concept, signs and limits of discretion, and then moves to the characteristic of realization of discretion by judge, prosecutor, investigator, detective. In general, without a doubt, the monograph of Torbas O. O. �Discretion in the criminal process of Ukraine: theoretical justification and practice of implementation� is relevant, complete and fundamental scientific work, has scientific and practical value. Monograph of Torbas O.O. significantly enriches criminal procedure doctrine regarding the subjects of criminal proceedings, criminal procedure decisions and other areas.

Limits of proof in criminal proceedings

2020 ◽  
pp. 82-86
Author(s):  
Aleksei Marochkin ◽  
Viktoriya Slyvnaya
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Main Body ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Evidence Collection ◽  
The Subject ◽  
European Standards ◽  
The Moment

Problem setting. Proving in criminal proceedings is evidence collection and research activity of special subjects of criminal proceedings. The specific purpose of prooving is to obtain knowledge that is close to reality. To achieve this purpose, the theory of criminal procedure operates with the concept of “limits of proof”. In view of the above, it is important to study this phenomenon, because, firstly, there is no legislative regulation, and secondly, there is no unity in the theory of criminal procedure on this issue. Target research. The aim of the work is to define the concept of the limits of proof; to find out the moment of reaching the limits of proof and cases of narrowing and expanding the limits of proof; to analyze case law on this issue. Analysis of recent research and publication. The question of determining the limits of proof, their relationship with the subject of prooving has been the subject of scientific research. In particular, the works of such researchers in the field of criminal procedure as A.R. Belkin, V.V. Vapnarchuk, G.F. Gorsky, Yu.M. Groshev, V.S. Zelenetsky, E.G. Kovalenko, L.D. Kokorev, R.V. Kostenko, R.D. Rakhunov, В.В. Rozhnov, V.G. Tanasovich, F.N. Fatkullin, A.A. Khmirov deserve attention. Article’s main body. The article discusses the concept and significance of the limits of proof in criminal proceedings, analyzes the differences between them and other procedural categories, and analyzes doctrinal developments regarding the criteria for reaching boundaries and judicial practice in cases of expanding or narrowing the limits of proof. Conclusions and prospect of development. Thus, the study allows us to state that the concept of the limits of proof in criminal proceedings is multifaceted and important because it aims to achieve fair trial. The limits of proof are individual for each specific criminal proceeding, and an important criterion for determining it is the standard of proof of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”. That is why the future study of this phenomenon in criminal proceedings becomes relevant due to the need to bring national criminal proceedings closer to European standards of justice.

scholarly journals The German “Verständigung” and Consensual Elements in German Criminal Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 1134-1148
Author(s):  
Matthias Jahn ◽  
Charlotte Schmitt-Leonardy
Keyword(s):  
A Priori ◽  
German Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Negotiated Agreements ◽  
Traditional Sense ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Individual

AbstractNegotiated agreements in criminal proceedings have often been regarded as the embodiment of a negative wider trend towards the informalization of the criminal procedure, and have—especially in Germany—long been the subject of vivid controversies. A criminal proceeding in the traditional sense aims to establish the truth ex officio, which is achieved by means of a comprehensive inquiry into the facts conducted by the court during the trial, followed by a sentence that appropriately reflects the individual guilt of the defendant, which can then, in turn, achieve the procedural objective of “justice.” A streamlining of the extensive inquiry into the facts that the court would normally have to conduct via the consensual process of negotiation does not, a priori, fit the mold of a criminal procedure in the aforementioned sense. At the same time, the consensual termination of criminal proceedings—which also includes other forms of termination of the proceeding besides the concept of Verständigung, which occur by means of a preferment of public charges—is, in fact, more prevalent in practice these days than judgments rendered in adversarial trials are. Our Article focuses on the reasons why this stark contrast between legal doctrine and reality came to pass and which aspects of the implementation of the concept of consensus into the German law of criminal procedure still seem problematic.

PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL OF THE PRINCIPAL ACTION BY THE PROCESUTOR IN THE POLISH CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (XIX) ◽  
pp. 173-183
Author(s):  
Jan Kil
Keyword(s):  
Current Model ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Subject

The subject of the article is the analysis of the admissibility of a partial withdrawal of a principalaction by the prosecutor in the current model of Polish criminal proceedings. The study defines the main procedural rules regarding the issue in question, namely the principle of accusatorial procedure and adversary trial system. In the study, the disposition of Article 14 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is being interpreted with the use of linguistic, teleological and functional directives of interpretation. The study also presents the arguments justifying the acceptance of the view of the admissibility of partial withdrawal of the complaint by the public prosecutor. The study presents the procedural implications of the aforementioned standpoint. In the study the possibility of partial withdrawal of the principal action on the basis of pending supplementary or private prosecution proceedings was also analyzed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document