Process of detention in Ukrainian criminal procedure

Author(s):  
Dariya Lazareva ◽  
Nataliia Reztsova

This research paper presents the analysis of essential characteristics of the detention process by an authorized official as an institution of criminal procedure. The author's definition of the concept of detention by an authorized official has been formulated. The authors have proposed to consider the use of this measure to ensure criminal proceedings as a form of proper and immediate response by authorized officials to the discovery of a crime and obtaining primary information that allows to reasonably suspect a person in its commission.

Author(s):  
Mariia Sirotkina ◽  

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".


Issues of Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 89-93
Author(s):  
S.M. Darovskikh ◽  
◽  
Z.V Makarova ◽  

The article is devoted to the issues of formulating the definition of such a criminal procedural concept as «procedural costs». Emphasizing the importance both for science and for law enforcement of clarity and clarity when formulating the definition of criminal procedural concepts, the authors point out that the formulation of this concept present in the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is far from being improved. Having studied the opinions on this issue of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, a number of procedural scholars, the authors propose their own version of the definition of the concept of «criminal procedural costs» with its allocation in a separate paragraph of Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.


Author(s):  
Tatyana K. Ryabinina ◽  
◽  
Daria O. Chistilina ◽  

The main objective is to examine the powers of the presiding judge in jury trials in the context of adversarial principles of criminal proceedings. Particular attention will be paid by the authors to different approaches to the notion of adversariality and the definition of the role of a professional judge in such courts, as well as the degree of his activity during the judicial investigation. The main methods used by the authors were dialectical and systematic method, analysis, synthesis, as well as special legal methods of knowledge. The outcome of the research will be a definition of the role of the presiding judge in a jury trial. Forms of criminal procedure that allow the individual to directly participate in the deci-sion-making process of the judiciary are responsible for ensuring citizen participation in the administration of justice in the state. Two such forms have been developed in the world practice so far: the classical jury trial model and the Scheffen model. Each of them provides certain (broad or narrow) powers of a professional judge, the scope of which determines the degree of independence of citizens and the ultimate prospects for the development of a system of popular democratic justice in an adversarial system of criminal proceedings. In today's Russia, the classical jury trial model, modeled after the English jury trial, does not provide for broad powers of the court. In addition, there is the adversarial principle in Russia, which is fostered by the existence of jury trials. However, strict adherence to its provisions may lead to a misunderstanding of the role of the presiding judge in such a court. The activity of a professional judge should be balanced in accordance with the needs of the criminal case under consideration. Thus, requesting additional evidence in the course of the trial in order to verify existing evidence should not be considered a violation of the adversarial principle. Thus, the development of the optimal model for jury trial functioning as well as the determination of the presiding judge's role in the context of adversarial principles of criminal proceedings is a socially-systemic task. It requires a comprehensive dogmatic, comparative-legal and political-legal approach in order to develop the jury trial model which is more con-sistent with the legal system of the state.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 111-121
Author(s):  
Jin Du ◽  
Liping Ding ◽  
Guangxuan Chen

As a new object in judicial practice, electronic evidence is of great practical significance. To locate the probative force of electronic evidence, which can be used to prove the facts of the crime, judging the electronic evidence validity, and how to establish scientific rules of electronic evidence, which not only effectively contains crime, but also protects civil rights from illegal infringement of state power becomes very important. This article outlines the definition of electronic evidence and rules and establishes a suitable electronic evidence system of China's criminal procedure system based on the analysis of problems in each link of judicial proof in judicial practice and the four aspects of judicial proof.


Author(s):  
І. В. Гловюк

Стаття присвячена дослідженню проблемних питань застосування тимчасового вилу­чення майна та арешту майна як заходів забезпечення кримінального провадження із урахуванням наявної судової практики. Указано та обґрунтовано некоректність норма­тивного визначення тимчасового вилучення майна. Відмічено прогальність нормативного визначення арешту майна в аспекті об'єктів, на які може бути накладено арешт. Сфор­мульовано пропозиції щодо внесення змін та доповнень до ч. 1 ст. 167 КПК щодо ви­значення поняття «тимчасове вилучення майна» та ч. 1 ст. 170 КПК щодо осіб, на майно яких може бути накладено арешт.   The article is dedicated to the research of problematic issues of exercise of temporary seizure of property and arrest of property as means for ensuring criminal proceedings considering relevant judicial practices. Author mentioned and justified his point of view regarding incorrectness of the normative definition of seizure. Author also indicated whitespaces of the regulatory definition of arrest of property in the aspect of objects that may be the subject for the arrest. Proposals for amendments and additions to the part 1 of the Art. 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the definition of «temporary seizure of property» and part 1 of the Art. 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the scope of persons whose property may be arrested have been made.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 104-110
Author(s):  
A.G. Trofimik ◽  

The research of the German criminal process reveals the main theoretical characteristics of theory of miscarriages of justice in German criminal procedure. The essential aspects of the doctrine of erroneous judgment are established. The conclusion about the significance of the doctrine of erroneous judgment for the modern theory of miscarriages of justice in Germany is formulated. Based on a comprehensive research of original German sources, the main provisions of the doctrine of erroneous judgment and the modern theory of miscarriages of justice in Germany are enunciated. The influence of discursive philosophy on theoretical ideas about criminal proceedings is established. The immediate practical applicability of these theories is rather low. In the author’s opinion, their importance, among other things, is that the problematics of miscarriages of justice in Germany are closely related to the concept of truth in criminal proceedings, which is uncharacteristically of Russian research in the designated area. Based on the analysis of German doctrine, the significance of theoretical provisions for establishing the truth in a criminal procedure is determined. A pragmatic, utilitarian German approach to the legislative formulation of truth in criminal proceedings is represented. The legislative recognition and interpretation of the truth in criminal proceedings are expressed. The correlation between the theoretical provisions on material truth and the theory of miscarriages of justice is confirmed. As the result of the research the functional meaning of truth for the theory and practice of criminal proceedings in Germany is enunciated. In addition, the German theoretic definition of the concept of «miscarriage of justice» is given. Characteristic of this concept are identified. The significance of the scientific conclusions of this article consists in determining the fundamental suitability of German dogma and theory for a comparative legal research of miscarriages of justice in Russia and Germany.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 68-81
Author(s):  
Željko Mirkov

Although there is no uniform definition of procedural principles in criminal procedure theory, they can be defined as legal rules or guidelines on which the criminal proceedings are based. As such, the principles of criminal procedure law apply to procedural entities and procedural actions. Evidentiary actions, as a type of procedural action, clarify the criminal case that is the subject of the criminal proceedings. The Criminal Procedure Code stipulates several evidentiary actions, one of which is the preliminary hearing of the defendant. The defendant hearing, in which the defendant gives their testimony, is given a great deal of attention because it represents one of the most important pieces of evidence, and the course of evidence presentation is the most significant and crucial issue of the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the paper will present a review of the criminal procedure principles related to this evidentiary action, starting from the principle of legality as the main principle, followed by the principles of orality, publicity, immediacy and adversity (party control of facts and means of proof).


Author(s):  
Viсtor Grigoryev ◽  
Alexander Sukhodolov ◽  
Sergey Ovanesyan ◽  
Marina Spasennikova ◽  
Vladislav Tyunkov

While noting the general trend for the regulation of digital relations in the sphere of criminal court proceedings, the authors draw attention to the absence of a common approach to this work, or of a universal understanding of criminal procedure norms regarding digital relations, as well as to the drawbacks in preparing new norms that regulate digital relations. Problems connected with the regulation of electronic processes are not specific for Russia only. Laws of some countries do not recognize evidence obtained electronically, and view it as secondary. The results of implementing the road map of digital economy and the approaches to the definition and typification of digital platforms are the basis for laying the foundations of the criminal proceedings’ digitization in Russia. Large-scale growth of innovations for the platforms and an increasing complexity of their architecture enable the solution of a new research task — the spread of digital platforms to various sectors, in this case, to the sphere of criminal proceedings. The authors use the definition of a digital platform approved by the Russian Governmental Commission on Digital Development to formulate their own definition of a digital information platform as an object of normative legal regulation in the sphere of criminal proceedings and prove that it should belong to sectoral digital platforms. The value of the transition to the normative legal regulation of digital information systems in the sphere of court proceedings lies in the reduction of costs and the elimination of the subjective factor by using a package of digital technologies of data processing and changing the system of the division of labor while reaching the purpose of criminal justice. The authors also stress the inappropriateness of simplification and primitivism, when a criminal procedure system is mechanically viewed as a system of distributed registers (blockchain), or when digitization is used as an excuse for suggesting the abolishment of investigative departments as parasites in the digital reality where crime investigation and solution become a job for ordinary internet users.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 308-315
Author(s):  
K. Smanaliev

The article is devoted to the peculiarities of changes in the model of criminal proceedings in the Kyrgyz Republic and the definition of ‘criminal proceedings’ is given in a new edition. It has been established that pre-trial proceedings as a stage in the criminal process; begins with the registration of statements and messages and is the initial independent stage of the criminal process, manifesting in two forms: investigation and proceedings on misdemeanor cases. It was confirmed that the refusal from the stage of initiating a criminal case was replaced by a new institute of the Unified Register of Crimes and Misdemeanors, which includes a process starting from the moment of electronic registration and a system for recording applications and messages, and ending with the execution of a court sentence. The object of the research is public relations associated with the reform and digitalization of pre-trial proceedings in the Kyrgyz Republic. The subject of the research is the novelties of the criminal procedure legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic regarding pre-trial proceedings. In connection with the latest legislative reforms and digitalization in Kyrgyzstan, a comparative analysis of the state of the criminal procedure legislation of a number of post-Soviet states (Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova) on issues related to the electronic system of the unified register of crimes and misconduct seems relevant to the author.


Author(s):  
Anastasiia Antoniuk ◽  
◽  
Valeriia Rusetska ◽  

This article is devoted to the consideration of theoretical issues related to the introduction in Ukraine of the institution of electronic evidence of criminal proceedings. The article also raises the question of ways to obtain electronic evidence. The article notes that in the modern developed world there are more and more new types of crimes. In this context, we will consider crimes closely related to the use of information technology. Proving such crimes raises some difficulties. To date, it is relevant to consolidate the concept of electronic evidence in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the formation of a methodology for their study. Also, the author of the article notes that among the unresolved and problematic aspects of using electronic evidence in criminal proceedings in Ukraine, scientists distinguish: the lack of a clear procedural procedure for obtaining them in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine; lack of grounds for declaring electronic evidence inadmissible; difficulties in identifying and fixing electronic evidence due to the lack of specialized knowledge among investigators, which necessitates the involvement of specialists for conducting legal proceedings; lack of a developed methodology for studying such evidence; lack of uniform terminology and regulation at the legislative level. It is determined in the article that for the effective implementation of international law in the field of combating cybercrime, it is advisable to substantiate the need for a legislative definition of electronic evidence, sources of their formation, the admissibility of international cooperation through the exchange of electronic evidence, the expediency of using electronic methods of sending requests and responses about their implementation, the possibility application of control information supply for investigation of transnational computer crimes. Based on the above, the author offers his own definition of electronic evidence. It is concluded that it is necessary to legislatively consolidate the term "electronic evidence" and continue to study the category, the importance of developing a methodology for studying electronic evidence, the procedure for collecting and recording them.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document