scholarly journals VERIFICATION AND ASSESMENT OF AN EXPERT’S CONCLUSION IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
pp. 120-138
Author(s):  
O. Baulin ◽  
O. Izotov
Keyword(s):  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Structural Elements ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Scientific Validity ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Current State ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court

The article considers the procedural and forensic aspects of the verification and assessment of an expert’s conclusion in criminal proceedings, its regulation under the current legislation of Ukraine. The authors define the assessment of the expert’s conclusion and indicate its structural elements and features, as well as what is its difference from the verifying the expert’s conclusion, since the latter is characterized not only by the operations of mental activity, but also by the conduct of investigative (search) and other procedural actions. It is noted that the verification of the expert’s conclusion in criminal proceedings always precedes its assessment. The assessment of the expert’s conclusion includes the analysis of the follows: – compliance with the procedural rules for the appointment, conduct and execution of the xamination; – competence and adequacy of an expert; – expert’s conclusions on compliance with the tasks assigned to him/her; – completeness and scientific validity of the conclusion; – the data of the conclusion regarding its relevance; – compliance of the expert’s conclusion with other evidence collected in criminal proceedings. The subjects carrying out criminal proceedings pay particular attention to the modern practice of assessing the expert’s conclusion. The approach is perceived critically, according to which only the categorical conclusion of the expert has evidentiary value, and the court cannot base the judgment on the probabilistic conclusion. Based on the provisions of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and on the example of the assessment of the conclusions of the forensic medical examination on the probabilistic cause of the death of the victim, which was made by the Supreme Court, applying the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the authors point to the obligatory use of probabilistic expert conclusions by courts to justify its acquittals. The article draws conclusions about the current state and limits of legal regulation of the assessment of an expert’s conclusion in criminal proceedings, the rules of which, according to the authors, do not need to be fixed in a separate article of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

scholarly journals Referring a Case to the Highest Division of the Supreme Court in the Criminal Procedure Legislation of Ukraine and European Countries

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-165
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Uniform Law ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Court Practice

The article aims to examine one of the elements of the formal mechanism of maintaining court practice unity in criminal proceedings of Ukraine and European countries – referring a case to the highest division of the Supreme Court. Similar to the Ukrainian criminal procedure legislation, the grounds for referring a criminal case and the procedure of its application are provided in the legislation of Estonia, Italy and Lithuania. At the same time, the Ukrainian legislator has established a number of special features, however, the wording of the relevant articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine is not perfect. The article provides answers to such questions as how forceful the provisions of criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine are, to what extent of effectiveness the Supreme Court exercises its legal authority regarding the unity of court practice in criminal proceedings, and whether the controversies in legal positions of the structural divisions of the Supreme Court have been successfully avoided. In order to achieve the stated aims, parts 2 and 3 are devoted to the examination of the grounds for referring a case in criminal proceedings of Ukraine and European countries. Part 4 outlines the shortcomings of the content of some articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine concerning the procedure of the referral of a criminal case to the highest division of the Supreme Court. Part 5 provides the analysis of the validity of decisions made by the boards of judges at the Supreme Court on the referral of criminal proceedings to its higher judicial divisions – the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. On the basis of the study of the judgements of boards, the judicial chambers of the Criminal Cassation Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, in part 6 the question is answered on whether the Supreme Court of Ukraine managed to perform its duty on the assurance of court practice unity in such an area as criminal proceedings. Keywords: exclusive legal problem, development of law, formation of uniform law enforcement practice, the Supreme Court, criminal proceedings, Ukraine.

scholarly journals FEATURES OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OF PRIVATE PROSECUTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 875-880
Author(s):  
E.F. Tensina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Procedural Rights

The article reveals the nature of the claim of a private prosecution, which establishes the freedom to dispose of material and procedural rights. The forms of manifestation of dispositive principles in the material and procedural aspects in the course of criminal proceedings are determined. Taking into account the nature of the claim of a private prosecution, various models of proceedings in criminal cases of a private prosecution and the peculiarities of the implementation of the provisions of the criminal procedure principle of the presumption of innocence are considered. The author critically assesses the legal constructions that allow the application of a special procedure for making a court decision in criminal proceedings of a private prosecution if the accused agrees with the charge brought. In particular, taking into account the provisions of the principle of the presumption of innocence, it is concluded that it is inadmissible to apply Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation when considering a criminal case of a private prosecution if it is initiated by filing an application directly with a magistrate in the manner prescribed by Art. 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation or when investigating a criminal case of this category in the form of an abbreviated inquiry, regulated by Ch. 32.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Specifics of some anti-corruption measures in Russia within the framework of public and state security

2020 ◽  
pp. 541-547
Author(s):  
Tatyana Plotnikova ◽  
Andrey Paramonov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
State Security ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Illegal Acts ◽  
The Russian Federation

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.

scholarly journals The subject of judicial control in consideration of complaints: controversial issues of legal regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-109
Author(s):  
El'vira Mirgorodskaya
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

The purpose of this study was an attempt to theoretically understand the subject of judicial consideration of complaints against decisions, actions (inaction) of officials carrying out criminal prosecution. The research was carried out on the basis of comparative legal, formal logical, empirical, statistical methods. Judicial statistics for the year 2020 have been provided, and legislation has been studied from a historical and contemporary perspective, taking into account the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The problem is that, in practice, for about 20 years the courts have had difficulties in determining the subject of complaints, since neither in theory nor in practice a consensus has been developed on this issue. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation also does not contain a definition of the concept of «subject matter». The situation is aggravated by the presence of evaluative concepts in the text of the law, leading to a varied understanding of the subject of appeal by the courts, which leads to a violation of the constitutional rights of citizens at the pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings. In the article, taking into account the analysis of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, legislation and the opinion of scientists, a recommendation was made to amend the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to specify the subject of consideration of complaints in accordance with Art. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in order to eliminate existing contradictions in practice and increase the level of protection of individual rights in pre-trial proceedings.

scholarly journals International Standards of Proof at the Stage of Court Consideration of Criminal Proceedings for Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 111-122
Author(s):  
Yevhenii KOMPANETS
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Standards Of Proof

Based on the analysis of scientific works, decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, foreign and national law enforcement practice, the theoretical aspects and the practice of use of standards of proof «weighty conviction», «beyond reasonable doubt» in criminal proceedings for infringement of intellectual property rights have been studied. Based on the opinions of scholars and the positions of the courts, the problematic issues, in particular, the place of the balance of probabilities in the judicial standards of proof and criminal proceedings have been identified. Critical remarks on the existing approaches have been made and the consequences of the lack of unity of the approach to implementation of standards of proof in Ukraine have been outlined. Recognition by the Supreme Court of the permanent criteria of the standard «beyond reasonable doubt» does not secure against contradictory judgements/decisions in similar cases. Such decisions do not contribute to the principles of legal certainty and fairness; they lead to avoiding of liability by infringers, repeated infringement of intellectual property rights and introduction of counterfeit products/counterfeit content into turnover. For discussion in the scientific community and for taking into consideration by the practical workers, a number of the decisions of the Supreme Court, which could guide further implementation of judicial standards of proof on the basis of the established criteria, inner conviction and «common sense», has been proposed.

scholarly journals To the admissibility of the civil law exemption of property from arrest, imposed in the criminal proceedings: domestic and foreign experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 190-200
Author(s):  
Natalia Kashtanova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Judicial Protection

The subject of paper deals with the legal nature of measures of criminal procedural compulsionin the form of seizure of property.Methodological basis of the article is based on general scientific dialectical methods of cognitionof objective reality of the legal processes and phenomena that allowed us to conduct anobjective assessment of the state of legislation and law enforcement practice in the proceduralaspects of the cancellation of the seizure of property in criminal proceedings of Russia.The results and scope of it’s application. It is submitted that the cancellation of the seizureof the property (or the individual limit) is allowed only on the grounds and in the mannerprescribed by the criminal procedure law of the Russian Federation. However, the studyfound serious contradictions in the application of the relevant law. In particular, cases inwhich the question of exemption of property from arrest (exclusion from the inventory),imposed in the criminal case was resolved in a civil procedure that, in the opinion of theauthor of the publication, is extremely unacceptable.On the stated issues topics analyzes opinions of scientists who say that the dispute aboutthe release of impounded property may be allowed in civil proceedings, including pendingresolution of the criminal case on the merits. The author strongly disagrees with this positionand supports those experts who argue that the filing of a claim for exemption of propertyfrom arrest (exclusion from the inventory) the reviewed judicial act of imposing of arrestwithout recognition per se invalid. In this regard, the author cites the legal position ofthe constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, from which clearly follows that of theright of everyone to judicial protection does not imply the possibility of choice of the citizenat its discretion, techniques and procedures of judicial protection, since the features of suchjudicial protection is defined in specific Federal laws.The author analyzes and appreciates Kazakhstan's experience of legal regulation of the permissibilityof filing a civil claim for exemption of property from seizure imposed in criminalproceedings. The author notes that the new civil procedural legislation of the Republic ofKazakhstan, which came into force from 01 January 2016, clearly captures that considerationin the civil proceedings are not subject to claims for exemption of property from seizureby the criminal prosecution body.Conclusions. Necessity of amendment to article 422 of the Civil Procedure Code of Russia:this article should not apply to cases of application of measures of criminal procedural compulsionin the form of seizure of property. Among other things, the author proposed additionsto part 9 of article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Russia.

scholarly journals Repeated proceedings against suspected illicit wealth – justifiable protection of public interest or violation of human rights?

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 38-56
Author(s):  
Skirmantas Bikelis
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Organised Crime ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Legal Strategies ◽  
Repeated Assessment

The internationally acknowledged need for effective legal measures against illicit enrichment that is perceived as the key policy tool against organised crime and corruption triggered rapid developments in the variety of those legal measures. Lithuania may serve as a sole-standing example of a jurisdiction that enacted a great variety of legal strategies against illicit enrichment – criminal liability both for money laundering and illicit enrichment and also extended powers of confiscation, civil confiscation and tax fines for unexplained income. This diversity of measures leads to the issue of competition arising between them and also carries the risk that measures may be used repeatedly and arbitrarily against persons and their property.The paper focuses on the issue of the legitimacy of repeated investigation and assessment of suspicious assets in civil confiscation proceedings and extended powers of confiscation.The analysis is divided into two parts where fundamentally different legal situations are discussed. In the first situation, repeated assessment of the origin of the assets takes place in proceedings of similar legal nature (proceedings aiming to restore legal order). The second situation appears where reassessment takes place in proceedings of a different nature – in the restorative proceedings after failure to prove the illicit origin of the assets in the punitive proceedings.While the first situation rather clearly falls within the scope of the principle of legal certainty and the rule res judicata that prohibit repeated proceedings for the same issue in the same circumstances against the same person, the second situation is more open to debate. Punitive proceedings use the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence is in play. These safeguards are designed to protect defendants from unfounded conviction, but they may be considered excessive for other legal issues such as the recovery of damages or the proceeds of illicit activities. In addition, in the context of civil confiscation, public interest in effective protection from organised crime and corruption comes into play. Therefore, there are strong arguments for giving priority to public safety over the principle of legal certainty that would protect defendants from repeated assessment of their assets in other proceedings with a lower standard of proof or even the reversed presumption of the illegality of unexplained wealth.Finally, the paper addresses the question of whether extended powers of confiscation qualify for restorative or punitive proceedings. The answer to this question is the key argument of whether civil confiscation proceedings can legitimately follow criminal proceedings where the court failed to confiscate the assets on the grounds of extended powers of confiscation. The paper argues that extended powers of confiscation are of a restorative nature. Therefore, when assets have already been investigated in proceedings of civil confiscation and their origin has been assessed as lawful in the light of extended powers of confiscation, re-consideration of their origin should be deemed as infringing the principle of legal certainty, unless the decision in the criminal proceedings was barred by lack of formal grounds.

scholarly journals Concept of Digital Evidence, Current Status and Its Role in the Evidentiary Process

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 55-60
Author(s):  
A. Yu. Cherdantsev
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Digital Evidence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Significant Information ◽  
Current State ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article analyzes the international current state of the concept of digital evidence, its meaning, types and role in the process of proving in criminal cases in the practical activities of the preliminary investigation bodies of the Russian Federation, considers some problems arising in law enforcement practice, suggests the author's classification of modern digital traces, studies and compares international practice governing the practical application of digital evidence, their concept and content. The problem of gaps in the legal regulation of digital evidence is considered, as well as the possibility of introducing amendments to the current legislation concerning the legal recognition of digital evidence along with traditional types of evidence, as well as the regulation of the use of digital evidence in criminal proceedings, and a proposal is made to introduce a number of amendments to the current legislation of the Russian Federation, where it is necessary to secure definitions of digital evidence, thus legalizing it, stating in the following re At the same time, it is noted that there is no need to introduce a separate article to regulate digital (electronic) evidences, because it is rather difficult to determine the volume of digital (electronic) evidences (digital criminally significant information), at least because there is no unanimity in this respect and there was no unanimity, besides, due to the dynamic development of electronics, including personal ones, this norm quickly lost its relevance and required amendments, creating a certain gap in legal regulation, which is more complicated.

scholarly journals Grounds for Canceling Seizure in Pre-Trial Criminal Proceedings

2020 ◽  
pp. 228-233
Author(s):  
Boris B. Bulatov ◽  
◽  
Alexander S. Dezhnev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Civil Lawsuits ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article examines the normative legal basis of the grounds for canceling property seizure in pre-trial criminal proceedings. The problem of the legislator’s usage of evaluative categories in removing investigator’s, interrogator’s or court’s restrictions is also analyzed. The solution of this problem is made dependent on the implementation of public or private interests. Discussing these issues, the authors come to the conclusion that this sphere is neither presented nor analyzed in academic monographic works. This circumstance indicates the novelty of the study owing to the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the issue. The conclusion about the priority of public principles over private interests concerning matters which are not related to civil lawsuits is made on the grounds of empirical data and the analysis of legislative approaches. The contradictions of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation regulating the basis and procedure for canceling property seizure and the laws on bankruptcy are identified. The directions for improving the legal regulation of these issues are presented. The necessity of a multisectoral regulation of some aspects of law enforcement is inferred. The examination of private principles in canceling property seizure is connected with securing a civil lawsuit in criminal proceedings. The authors substantiate the existence of additional opportunities in making decisions in this field via the legal regime. This regime is also used in some other legal acts and may be put into practice in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. However, the imposed restrictions can be canceled on the basis of the decision by a person considering a criminal case. The authors note the incoherence of some provisions of Part 3 and Part 9 of Article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. This incoherence is connected with different approaches to the view on public and private interests in decision making. The authors substantiate the necessity of a legal linking of grounds for canceling property seizure with the decision on imposing this resriction. The conclusion about the comprehensive order of property seizure is made in the final part of the article. It is also stated that this order does not contain distinct criteria of the legality of the decision. Certain parts of the criminal procedure laws should be corrected. Some ways to improve the field of legal regulation concerning the opportunity of canceling seizure are given.

scholarly journals Legislative Development of Criminal Proceedings and Evidence in the Slovak Republic (1993-2021)

2022 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Adrián Vaško
Keyword(s):  
Slovak Republic ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Current State

Background: In this article, the author focuses on the legislative development of criminal proceedings and evidence after the establishment of the Slovak Republic. This article pays special attention to the issue of evidence and means of proof. It also deals separately with the legal regulation of using information and technical means. It briefly suggests possible directions of development in the field of evidence, reflecting the current state of development of science and technology, as well as changes in the security situation. Methods: The scientific methods of historical analysis and legal comparison were used to process the research data. Results and Conclusions: Developments in this area are constantly advancing, and the area of evidence in criminal proceedings in the Slovak Republic will inevitably be subject to updating.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document