scholarly journals Involvement of a Specialist in Criminal Proceedings: A Defense Party’s Duty, Right or Opportunity

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 82-89
Author(s):  
A. P. Bozhchenko ◽  
I. M. Nikitin

The article reviews the contradictions between the procedural law and an attorney’s professional duty to use an opinion of a knowledgeable person in the system of criminal procedure protection. The paper provides an analysis of the problems and difficulties arising in the implementation of this right in the criminal process leading to violation of the equality and adversarial principles: the optionality of the defense’s right to involve a specialist; the biased attitude of law enforcement agencies to the expert presented by the defense; the desire to diminish the probative value of the specialist’s conclusion and testimony; the absence of an obligation for an investigator and court in all cases to attach the expert’s opinion to the case. The author emphasizes how important it is for all the participants in the criminal process to understand the expert’s opinion and testimony’s independent evidentiary value. Proposals that contribute to the legal specificity and further development of the specialist institution within the framework of the fundamental principles of competition and equality of the parties are presented.

Author(s):  
Dmуtrо Pylypenko ◽  

The article analyzes the features of the beginning of criminal proceedings defined by the current criminal procedure law of Ukraine. The criminal procedural norms which define an initial stage in criminal proceedings are investigated. The provisions of the norms of the legislation which determine the legal fact of the beginning of proceedings in the case are analyzed. The positions of scientists in this regard are considered. In particular, the scientific concepts concerning the implementation in the norms of the current law of the provision that existed in the content of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1960, namely the decision to initiate a criminal case. The analysis of the practice of application of the current norms of the criminal procedural law in this regard for the author's point of view on the expediency of such a step is analyzed. The author's position on the preservation of the existing law within the existing provisions, on the commencement of criminal proceedings from the moment of entering information into the unified register of pre-trial investigations. This position is fully correlated with the provisions of the concept of criminal justice reform. There are also examples from the practical activities of law enforcement agencies, which were the basis for this conclusion. The article also examines the issue of determining the time limits for the start of pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings and entering information into a single register of pre-trial investigations. The positions of scientists on this issue, which are quite different and sometimes polar, are analyzed. The author's attention is focused on certain difficulties that arise in law enforcement agencies during the proper initiation of criminal proceedings. It is emphasized that the term available in the current law for twenty-four hours is extremely insignificant for the correct determination of the qualification of the offense and its composition. It is proposed to increase the period to three days during which the investigator must enter information into the unified register of pre-trial investigations and initiate criminal proceedings. It is these time limits that must be sufficient for the investigator or prosecutor to properly comply with the requirements of the applicable criminal procedure law.


Author(s):  
Oleksiy Skryabin ◽  
Dmytro Sanakoiev

The article analyzes the principles of criminal procedure, which are the expression of the prevailing political and legal ideas of the state, relate to the tasks and methods of judicial proceedings in criminal proceedings, are enshrined in law and operate throughout all stages and necessarily in its central stage. Modern theoretical ideas about the system of principles of criminal proceedings are still in the stage of active methodological and ideological rethinking. Discussions continue both on the concept and features of the principles of criminal proceedings, their system, and on the peculiarities of implementation at different stages of the criminal process. Violation of the principles of criminal procedure is a sign of illegality of decisions in the criminal and becomes the basis for the cancellation of these decisions. The principle of legality characterizes the legal regime of strict and mandatory observance of laws in law enforcement practice, which manifests itself in criminal proceedings, limits the discretionary powers of the pre-trial investigation, prosecutor's office and court. The principle of legality becomes an opportunity to transfer criminal proceedings from one procedural stage to another only on the basis of the law and in a strictly defined sequence. Legality is one of the guarantees of establishing the truth in a criminal case, which ensures the protection of human and civil rights and freedoms. The principle of legality is characterized by mandatory observance of laws in criminal proceedings, is a limiting factor in the discretion of the pre-trial investigation, prosecution and court. Due to the implementation of the principle of legality, the shortcomings and gaps in the criminal process that exist in criminal procedural law can be overcome.


Author(s):  
Tatyana Plotnikova ◽  
Andrey Paramonov

In the current difficult conditions for the economy of our state, corruption crimes represent a higher level of danger. It is necessary to reform anti-corruption activities in order to increase its effectiveness. One of the radical measures in the field of anti-corruption will be the abolition of the presumption of innocence for corrupt illegal acts. The presumption of inno-cence is a fundamental and irremovable principle of criminal law, which is enshrined in article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Violation of this principle is impossible for criminal proceedings, but modern circumstances require timely, prompt, and sometimes radical so-lutions. It is worth not to neglect the measures of “insuring” on the part of law enforcement agencies, since otherwise it will increase the share of cor-ruption crimes in law enforcement agencies. The content of paragraph 4 of article 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is man-datory even if the presumption of innocence for corruption crimes is can-celed: “A conviction cannot be based on assumptions”. At the same time, the principle of differentiation of punishment will be implemented by assigning the term of imprisonment from the minimum to the maximum, depending on the severity of the illegal act.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 147-150
Author(s):  
Iryna Hloviuk ◽  

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (4) ◽  
pp. 73-78
Author(s):  
Т. П. Матюшкова

One of the urgent tasks of criminalistics has been studied – the content and elements of forensic security of the participants of criminal proceedings have been determined. Traditionally, this activity is given considerable attention in the areas of criminal law, criminal procedure, as well as operative and search activities. The few works of criminalists mainly reflect the problems of anonymity of interrogating the witnesses, recommendations on tactical features of the interrogation and identification by the means of videoconference. Thus, there are currently no comprehensive studies of forensic aspects of ensuring security for the participants of criminal proceedings in Ukraine. Systematization and improvement of theoretical provisions of forensic security of the participants of criminal proceedings, determining the content and elements of forensic aspects of the researched activity will facilitate both further development of forensic science and have a positive impact on investigative and judicial practice. The author has defined such forensic aspects of ensuring the security for the participants of criminal proceedings as technical and forensic, tactical and forensic, methodological and forensic. Technical and forensic aspect should cover the development and improvement of scientific principles and forensic recommendations for the application of special technical means and methods of ensuring the security of persons. The content of tactical and forensic security of the participants of criminal proceedings will be the development of scientific principles and forensic recommendations for the application of organizational measures and tactical means and methods (tactics, tactical combinations, tactical operations) during the preparation, conduction and recording of certain investigative (search) actions with the participation of persons, in respect of whom security measures are provided. Methodological and forensic security of the participants of criminal proceedings should include the development of methodical recommendations on such specific features of investigating certain types of crimes due to the security of individuals, in particular due to the interaction of law enforcement agencies in ensuring the security for the participants of criminal proceedings, the use of special knowledge, cooperation with national state institutions, law enforcement agencies of other countries, etc.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Ariananto Waluyo Adi

The law recognizes both litigation and non-litigation settlement mechanisms, but it is almost not explicitly regulated for non-litigation settlement in criminal cases. Non-litigation in criminal recognizes the concept of restorative justice for the public interest, which is different from the private realm in civil. The concept of restorative justice exists to rehabilitate the state of criminals so that they are accepted back into the community. The concept of restorative justice is manifested in the mediation mechanism in criminal law in the form of penal mediation, but penal mediation does not yet have a legal umbrella. The non-progressive normative application of the law results in the overcapacity of prisons/remand centres. Currently, the Draft Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter as RKUHAP) is being drafted, which does not yet regulate the application of non-litigation solutions. Later, it can be applied by law enforcement agencies so that problems such as overcapacity prisons are resolved and the creation of peaceful order in the community. This study aims to provide a view of the concept of penal mediation in criminal procedural law to serve as an aspiration for the consideration of the parties involved in the preparation of the substance of the RKUHAP. This paper uses a normative approach with technical analysis using hermeneutic analysis and interpretation methods.


Author(s):  
Artem Shapar ◽  
◽  
Yuriy Yelaiev ◽  

In this scientific article, the continuation of the gnoseological (epistemological) research of legal doctrine as a source of criminal proceedings is carried out. In this scientific work, theoretical perception of scientific concepts of Ukrainian and foreign legal scholars in the field of legal doctrine as a source of law (in general), taking into account the legal significance of legal doctrine as a source of criminal procedural law (in particular) is carried out. In this scientific work, the attention is paid to the research of the fundamental and systemic relationship of legal doctrine with other sources of criminal proceedings (in particular, with the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on a particular constitutional and judicial case). The text of this scientific article studies, inter alia, the fundamental and systemic relationship of Legal Doctrine with Separate Opinion of the Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (in a particular constitutional and judicial case), as sources of criminal procedural law of Ukraine. At the same time, the peculiarities of constitutional and judicial legal regulation in the field of criminal proceedings and in combination with the study of theoretical and legal and philosophical and legal bases (foundations) of the abovementioned two sources of criminal process in Ukraine are taken into account. The scientific knowledge of the theoretical and legal and philosophical and legal relationship of the Legal Doctrine with the Separate Opinion of the Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (as sources of criminal procedural law of Ukraine) is carried out with consideration of the scientific and theoretical features, specified in the text of Separate Opinion of the Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of legal (in particular, philosophical and legal, doctrinal and legal, general and legal, criminal and procedural) definitions. In the text of this scientific article, the attention is paid to the humanistic legal doctrine on which the acts of international law in the field of human rights (in particular, human rights in the field of criminal procedure) are based. In this scientific article, the attention is paid to legal doctrine as a manifestation of a person's ability to learn (including knowledge of the sphere of criminal process).


Author(s):  
S. V. Matveev ◽  
S. M. Kolotova

The Institute of extradition is one of the most important areas of international cooperation in the fight against crime, since this tool ensures the achievement of the fundamental principles of the criminal process, which include: the restoration of the rights of the victim violated by the crime, the application of fair punishment to the criminal, despite the differences in the legal regulation of this issue in the jurisdiction of different States. However, should the legal regulation currently, this institution does not have, and therefore the activities of law enforcement agencies in this part cause certain difficulties.The article analyzes some features of the legal regulation of the institution of extradition in the criminal process of the Russian Federation, identifies current problems of theory and practice of application. In addition, the author suggests ways to solve the problems of legal regulation of this institution. Attention is focused on the need to make changes not only to the legislative framework, but also to modernize the extradition mechanism itself. In addition, the current issues that arise in the course of the extradition procedure, both at the request of the Russian Federation and foreign States, are considered. 


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 621-642
Author(s):  
Sergey B. Rossinskiy ◽  

The article is devoted to the analysis of historical prerequisites that predetermined the distinctive nature of the national system of Russian pre-trial proceedings as the initial stage of criminal procedure. By analyzing the peculiarities of domestic criminal procedure legislation, and the development of judicial and law enforcement agencies, in addition to drawing comparative parallels with foreign mechanisms for solving and investigating crimes, the author assumes that the gradual autonomy of the Soviet and then Russian system of pre-trial proceedings was a direct result of the well-known historical cataclysms associated with the Soviet power establishment in 1917 and its fall in 1991. It is noted that a rather unique model, based on the chaotic mixing and interweaving of various, including poorly compatible, elements inherent in various models of criminal procedure (French, German, Anglo-Saxon) of pre-trial proceedings has been formed in Russia at present. These elements are linked by means of specific domestic criminal procedure doctrine’s “inventions”, which are reflected in the relevant provisions of criminal procedure law and practical recommendations for law enforcement practice. The modern Russian model of pre-trial proceedings is expressed in the integration of the functions of the “police” and “justice”, in providing law enforcement agencies criminal procedural powers of a forensic nature to collect full-fledged evidence for the upcoming court hearing. According to the author, this explains many doctrinal and legislative problems of Russian pre-trial proceedings, which for many years have had a negative impact on judicial and investigative practice (problems related to the initiation of criminal proceedings; problems of practice in proving the results of operational-search activities; problems related to the legal regulation of the detention of a suspect, etc.). The research concludes that the legislator should stop the law-creating “throwing”, the policy of a chaotic mixing of various elements inherent in different types of criminal proceedings, and, finally, choose one single model that is the most suitable for modern Russia with its laws and realities of development.


Author(s):  
Ulmas Sharipov ◽  

The purpose of writing this article is to show that in practice the law enforcement agencies conducting pre-trial investigation and preliminary investigation do not strictly follow the detention procedure established by the Code of Criminal Procedure, although the grounds for detaining detainees are not sufficient. by deciding to detain the accused and allegedly facilitating the preliminary investigation through this "method", ie the violation of the rights and interests of the suspects and accused persons involved in the criminal proceedings as a result of the discovery of the crime and the use of suspects as a means of proving guilt being put. The main purpose of writing this article is to prevent these cases and to amend the legislation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document