Criminal procedural consequences of the court’s return of an indictment to the prosecutor
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.
Downloads
References
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.
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.
Basysta, I. V., Blahuta, R. I., & Komissarchuk, Yu. A. (2022). Actual problems of application of criminal procedural legislation. Lviv State University of Internal Affairs.
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.
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.
Drozdov, O., Drozdova, O., & Shulgin, S. (2021, June 29). How the time for familiarization with the materials affects the completion of the pre-trial investigation and other related issues. Ukrainian National Bar Association. https://unba.org.ua/publications/6727-yak-chas-na-oznajomlennya-z-materialami-vplivae-na-zavershennya-dosudovogorozsliduvannya-ta-inshi-dotichni-pitannya.html.
Hloviuk, I. V. (2022, November 18). Some issues of interpretation of the norms on the terms of pre-trial investigation in the practice of the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court [Conference presentation abstract]. All-Ukrainian Scientific and Practical Conference on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the entry into force of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine “Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine: a decade of implementation and current problems”, Lviv, Ukraine.
Hlynska, N. V. (2014). Conceptual principles for the definition and ensuring the standards of the quality of criminal procedural decisions. Truth.
Kaplina, O. V., Karpenko, M. O., Mariniv, V. I. et al. (2022). Criminal Procedure (3rd ed.). Right.
Kryklyvets, D. Ye., Kerniakevych-Tanasiichuk, Yu. V., Fidria, Yu. O., Muzychuk, K. S., & Sasko, O. I. (2021). The process of pardoning those sentenced to life sentences and long terms of imprisonment as a criterion for increasing the liberality of the judicial system. Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 28(2), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.37635/jnalsu.28(2).2021.277-287.
Loboiko, L. M. (2006). Criminal Procedural Competence. Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Affairs.
Mykhailenko, V. (2022, January 24). Return of the indictment to the prosecutor: problems of understanding, interpretation and application. Legal Newspaper. https://yur-gazeta.com/publications/practice/sudova-praktika/-povernennya-obvinuvalnogo-akta-prokuroru-problemi-rozuminnya-tlumachennya-ta-zastosuvannya.html.
Nadybska, O., Fedotova, H., Shcherbyna, S., Chornous, Yu., & Basysta, I. (2020). Children’s rights ombudsman: Experience of Ukraine and foreign countries. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 23(2). https://www.abacademies.org/articles/childrens-rights-ombudsman-experience-of-ukraine-and-foreign-countries-9134.html.
Panov, M. I., Kharytonov, S. O., & Haltsova, V. V. (2021). Object of criminal offenсe: Modern interpretations. Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 28(4), 262–269. https://doi.org/10.37635/jnalsu.28(4).2021.262-269.
Shepitko, M. V. (2020). To the problem of structure and classifications of criminal policy formation. Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 27(4), 282–293. https://doi.org/10.37635/jnalsu.27(4).2020.282-293.
Shevchuk, O. M., Drozdov, O. M., Kozak, V. A., Vyltsan, A. O., & Verhoglyad-Gerasymenko, О. V. (2023). Human Right to Access Public Information: The Experience of Ukraine and the Practice of the ECtHR. Hasanuddin Law Review, 9(2), 155–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v9i2.4396.
Shulhin, S. (2023, September 15–16). Return of the Indictment to the Prosecutor: Problematic Legal Consequences [Conference presentation abstract]. XХ International Scientific and Practical Conference “Current Issues of Legal System Reform”, Lutsk, Ukraine.
Copyright (c) 2024 O. M. Drozdov, N. V. Glynska, I. V. Basysta
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
