Criminal procedural consequences of the court’s return of an indictment to the prosecutor

Author:

Drozdov O. M.ORCID,Glynska N. V.ORCID,Basysta I. V.ORCID

Abstract

The article analyses the criminal procedural consequences which will occur under the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine if the court returns an indictment to the prosecutor. Based on a comparison of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960 and the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, it has been established that the current consequences of returning an indictment by a court are different from those which existed when a case was returned for additional investigation under Article 246 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960 by a judge's decision. It has been argued that no practical attempts should be made, contrary to the provisions of the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, to impose on the existing (albeit not perfect) procedural procedure for the prosecutor to eliminate the deficiencies of the indictment, the features of additional investigation which are not inherent to it. It has been determined that the return to the prosecutor of an indictment or a petition for the application of compulsory medical or educational measures due to the fact that they do not meet the requirements of paragraph 3 of Part 3 of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine does not resume the pre-trial investigation, nor does it restore the course of its term. It has been proved that after returning the said procedural documents to the prosecutor, the prosecution should act without unreasonable delays and should not conduct new investigative (search) actions or other actions related to the collection of evidence. Such a return does not exclude the possibility of the prosecutor performing certain procedural actions which are of an organisational nature or are necessary to ensure the execution of a court order and to correct the deficiencies of an indictment, or a request for the application of compulsory medical or educational measures. It has been argued that a prosecutor may not, by abusing his/her rights (powers), i.e. contrary to the scope and procedure for exercising his/her discretionary powers, use the return of the above documents to actually continue the pre-trial investigation and eliminate its shortcomings. It has been concluded that in case of the opposite development of events, due to the commission of a criminal procedural offence by the prosecutor, there will be grounds for criminal procedural consequences, for example, the court's declaring the evidence inadmissible or those provided for in paragraph 10 of Part 1 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

Publisher

Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs

Reference17 articles.

1. Basysta, I. V. (2022, October 21). Regarding the application of the terms defined in Article 301 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulates the peculiarities of the completion of the inquiry, when deciding on the closure of criminal proceedings if, after notifying a person of suspicion, the period of pre-trial investigation specified in Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine has expired (paragraph 10 of Part 1 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine) [Conference presentation abstract]. International Scientific and Practical Conference “Theory and practice of crime counteraction in modern conditions”, Lviv, Ukraine.

2. Basysta, I. V. (2023). Estimation of the Term of Pre-Trial Investigation when Studying Its Materials: Theory and Practice. NaUKMA Research Papers. Law, 11, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-2607.2023.11.47-55.

3. Basysta, I. V., Blahuta, R. I., & Komissarchuk, Yu. A. (2022). Actual problems of application of criminal procedural legislation. Lviv State University of Internal Affairs.

4. Basysta, I. V., Galagan, V. I., & Udovenko, Zh. V. (2023). Authority of the prosecutor to conduct procedural actions in criminal proceedings: separate problems. Kherson State University Herald. Series Legal Sciences, 1, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.32999/ksu2307-8049/2023-1-3.

5. Blahuta, R. I., & Basysta, I. V. (2022). Some problems of making a procedural decision to close criminal proceedings in connection with the release of a person from criminal liability. Social and Legal Studios, 5(1), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.32518/2617-4162-2022-5-22-28.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3