The weight of criminal judicial evidence

Author:

Shumylo Mykola Ye.1,Gmyrko Valery P.2,Rudei Vladyslav S.1

Affiliation:

1. Kyiv Regional Center of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine

2. Center for Justice and Formation of a Unified Judicial Practice of Kyiv Regional Center of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine

Abstract

The study is devoted to the current issue of the weight of criminal judicial evidence, which is understudied in the national doctrine. The legislator, having introduced this evaluative concept in 2012 (Paragraph 1, Part 11, Article 1 of 178 CCP), did not provide its normative definition. As a result, there is a conceptual uncertainty, which is inappropriate given the requirements of the rule of law (Article 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Article 8 of the CCP). Therefore, the purpose of study is to attempt to formulate a definition of the “weight of evidence”, to propose a scheme of work of a lawyer to determine the signs of this activity phenomenon in situations of making appropriate procedural decisions. The study is based on the activity methodology using a number of special methods – search and bibliographic; semantic; Aristotelian; hermeneutic; historical-legal; comparative-legal; functional analysis; generalisation. The study formulated the definition of the “weight of evidence” as an activity characteristic. The latter is the result of a pragmatic logical and legal evaluation of ad hoc evidence within its totality. Thus, certain evidence is prioritised due to the greater suitability attributed to it by the lawyer to serve as a convincing evidence base of the procedural decision. Therefore, the conclusion is substantiated that the “weight of available evidence” as its activity characteristic is “the fifth element” of the structure of “criminal judicial evidence” along with such characteristics as “credibility”, “admissibility”, “reliability”, and “sufficiency”. The study includes conclusion that the introduction by the legislator in 2012 of the “weight of available evidence” meets the requirements of the evidentiary practice of the modern national adversarial process and the ECHR

Publisher

National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine

Subject

Law,Philosophy,History

Reference23 articles.

1. Gmyrko, V.P., Shumylo, M.Ye., Vapniarchuk, V.V., Kaplina, O.V., & Shybiko, V.P. (2019). Judicial nature of evidence in criminal proceeding. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 7, 1976-1983.

2. Sergeieva, D.B. (2013). Problems of determining the reliability of evidence as its properties under the new Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The Lawyer of Ukraine, 4(25), 106-111.

3. Lukashkina, T.V. (2014). The conditions and grounds for using of precautionary measures under the current CPC of Ukraine. In Proceedings of the international scientific conference for teachers and graduate students “Legal life of modern Ukraine” (pp. 683-686). Retrieved from http://dspace.onua.edu.ua/handle/11300/4074.

4. Rozhnova, V.V. (2019). The significance of available evidence when choosing a precautionary measure: Domestic law and international standards. Retrieved from http://elar.naiau.kiev.ua/jspui/handle/123456789/5122.

5. Fomina, T.G. (2018). Circumstances that are taken into account when choosing a precautionary measure. Law Forum, 1, 95-104

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