PROBLEMS OF APPLICATION OF A SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR THE TRIAL ON CRIMINAL CASES


Cite item

Abstract

This article discusses theoretical and practical problems of a special procedure for criminal justice. A brief description of the idea of simplifying the trial by truncating the stage of proof is given. The purpose of the article is to identify some shortcomings of the regulatory framework and formulate proposals for further research, as well as ways to improve the legislation. The authors trace the legislative changes about the special proceeding, and express reasonable doubts regarding the compliance of the special proceeding of the trial with the basic criminal procedural principles. There is a comparison of the legal nature of the sentence in general and special order. The idea of the duality of the sentence is criticized. Special attention is paid to the dependence of the special proceeding on the consent of the victim, as well as to criticism of the procedure for appealing against the investigator’s decision to refuse the petition for concluding a cooperation agreement.

About the authors

N. A. Razveykina

Department of Social Systems and Law, Samara National Research University

Author for correspondence.
Email: grigorjewa.katerina@yandex.ru
Russian Federation

E. A. Dyachkova

Department for the Investigation of Crimes, committed in the Kirov District, Office of Criminal Investigations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the Samara Region, Samara National Research University

Email: grigorjewa.katerina@yandex.ru
Russian Federation

References

  1. Ugolovno-protsessual’nyi kodeks Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 18.12.2001 № 174-FZ (red. ot 01.04.2019, s izm. ot 17.04.2019) (s izm. i dop., vstup. v silu s 12.04.2019) [Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation as of 18.12.2001 № 174–FZ (revised 01.04.2019, as amended on 17.04.2019) (as amended effective of 12.04.2019). Retrieved from legal reference system «ConsultantPlus», 2019. Available at: http:// www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_34481 [in Russian].
  2. Piyuk A. V. Nekotorye problemy osobogo poryadka razresheniya ugolovnykh del [Some problems of special trial order of the examination criminal cases]. Sibirskie ugolovno-protsessual’nye i kriminalisticheskie chteniya [Siberian Criminal Procedure and Criminalistic Readings], 2016, Issue 2 (10), pp. 29–37. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/nekotorye-problemy-osobogo-poryadka-razresheniya-ugolovnyh-del [in Russian].
  3. Otchet o rabote sudov obshchei yurisdiktsii po rassmotreniyu ugolovnykh del po pervoi instantsii za 2018 god [Report on the work of the courts of general jurisdiction for the consideration of criminal cases in the first instance for 2018]. Available at: http://www.cdep. ru/index.php?id=79&item=4891 (accessed 22.04.2019) [in Russian].
  4. Herrmann Joachim. Bargaining Justice – A Bargain for German Criminal Justice. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 1991–1992, 53: 755. Available at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/Landing Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/ upitt53&div=26&id=&page= (accessed 01.06.19) [in English].
  5. Harney Alexandra. China passes pilot program for plea bargains. Reuters. 3 September 2016. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chinacourts-plea-bargains/china-passes-pilot-program-for-pleabargains-idUSKCN11904W?il=0 (accessed 22.04.2019) [in English].
  6. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 11. Pleas. Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. 2011-11-30. Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/ rules/frcrmp/rule_11 (accessed 10.06.2019) [in English].
  7. Pisarevskiy I. I. Osobyi poryadok kak institut, ne imeyushchii analogov v istorii rossiiskogo ugolovnogo protsessa [Special procedure as an institution with no background in the history of Russian criminal procedure]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Tomsk State University Journal], 2016, no. 404, pp. 169–173. doi: 10.17223/15617793/404/27 [in Russian].
  8. Proekt Federal’nogo zakona «O vnesenii izmenenii v stat’i 314 i 316 Ugolovno-protsessual’nogo kodeksa Rossiiskoi Federatsii» [Draft of the Federal Law «On Amendments to Articles 314 and 316 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation»]. Available at: http://sozd.duma.gov.ru/bill/690652-7 (accessed 22.04.2019) [in Russian].
  9. Belyaev М. V. Sudebnye resheniya, vynosimye v osobom poryadke sudebnogo razbiratel’stva: mekhanizm prinyatiya i osobennosti soderzhaniya [Judicial decisions rendered in a special court order: mechanism of adoption and peculiarities of the content]. Sud’ya [Judge], 2018, no. 10, pp. 54–59. Available at: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=36535316 [in Russian].
  10. Federal’nyi zakon ot 29.06.2015 № 191FZ «O vnesenii izmeneniya v stat’yu 90 Ugolovno-protsessual’nogo kodeksa Rossiiskoi Federatsii» [Federal Law as of June 29, 2015 № 191-FZ «On Amending Article 90 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation»]. Retrieved from legal reference system «ConsultantPlus», 2019. Available at: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_181863/ [in Russian].
  11. Zheltobryukhov S. P. Nuzhno li soglasie gosudarstvennogo obvinitelya i poterpevshego pri postanovlenii prigovora v osobom poryadke sudebnogo razbiratel’stva? [Is the consent of the public prosecutor
  12. and the victim, when the sentence in special judicial proceedings?]. Rossiiskaya yustitsiya [Russian Justitia], 2017, no. 12, pp. 60–Available at: https://elibrary.ru/ item.asp?id=32292196 [in Russian].
  13. Piyuk А. V. Institut osobogo poryadka rassmotreniya ugolovnykh del sudom nuzhdaetsya v sovershenstvovanii [Institute a special procedure for the examination of criminal cases, the court needs to be improved]. Rossiiskaya yustitsiya [Russian Justitia], 2017, no. 6, pp. 20–23. Available at: https://elibrary.ru/ item.asp?id=29312613 [in Russian].
  14. Kassatsionnoe opredelenie Verkhovnogo Suda RF ot 17.05.2011 № 60-O11-4 «V silu polozhenii deistvuyushchego zakonodatel’stva otsenka znacheniya sotrudnichestva obvinyaemogo so sledstviem otnesena isklyuchitel’no k kompetentsii organov predvaritel’nogo sledstviya i prokurora, obsuzhdeniyu na stadii kassatsionnogo obzhalovaniya sudebnogo resheniya, vynesennogo po itogam sudebnogo razbiratel’stva, ne podlezhit» [Cassation definition of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation as of 17.05.2011 № 60-O11-4 «By virtue of the provisions of the current legislation, the assessment of the value of the cooperation of the accused with the investigation is attributed solely to the competence of the bodies of the preliminary investigation and the prosecutor, which is not subject to discussion at the stage of cassation appeal of the court decision on the results of the trial»]. Available at legal reference system «ConsultantPlus», 2019. Available at: http://www. consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_34481/93ffecb 42f259484eb339f9ed8d7679d954e7bba [in Russian].

Copyright (c) 2020 Н. А. Развейкина, Е. А. Дьячкова

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies