Based on the analysis of special literature, regulations and forensic expert practice, the article considers the main provisions related to formation of criteria for evaluating a forensic expert report as a source of evidence in terms of their relevance and admissibility.
Arguments are provided regarding the fact that if objects investigated by a forensic expert or solved tasks do not relate to materials of criminal proceedings, then, accordingly, a forensic expert report should be recognized as an irrelevant source of evidence.
When assessing admissibility of a forensic expert report, it is crucial to establish whether a forensic examination was appointed and conducted in accordance with the procedural order. Such an evaluation criterion is supported by regulations of Article Four of the Fundamental Law of Ukraine: “On Forensic Science”, according to which independence of a forensic expert and validity of his findings are ensured by the procedure for appointing a forensic expert determined by law.
It is argued that calling on a forensic expert as a witness for the purpose of clarifying and supplementing his report may lead to his withdrawal from the criminal process by means of recusal. An expert who has conducted forensic examination, interrogated as a witness, will not be able to participate in this criminal proceeding as a forensic expert in the future. If a forensic expert interrogated as a witness will carry out, for example, an additional forensic examination in this criminal proceeding in the future, then it may be recognized as inadmissible evidence, since it was conducted by a witness in this criminal proceeding, which is prohibited by law. That is, based on the regulations of the current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine, a forensic expert can provide clarifications on the issues of forensic examination carried out by him in criminal proceedings only as a forensic expert and not as a witness.
Inadmissibility of Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in Ukraine
