Standardisation of prof by investigating judges when exercising their powers to consider requests for permission to conduct procedural actions
Abstract
Based on the modern achievements of the national science in criminal procedure and the development of the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings, in particular, its standardization, the author examines the theoretical prerequisites for standardization of evidence by an investigating judge when considering requests for permission to conduct procedural actions. The following conclusions are emphasised: 1) the concepts of functions and powers of an investigating judge are multilevel, and powers are of optional, auxiliary significance in relation to the function. The function of judicial control finds its practical implementation through the formal existence of a certain range of powers of the investigating judge and through their exercise during criminal proceedings; 2) the consideration of requests for permission to conduct procedural actions is a type of powers of the investigating judge aimed at exercising the function of judicial control over the observance of the rights, freedoms and interests of persons in criminal proceedings; 3) the consideration of requests for permission to conduct procedural actions is carried out in the form of evidence, which is standardised by the legislator; 4) standards of proof are a set of rules that must be followed by the subject of criminal proceedings and ensure that he or she has the level of conviction necessary to make a lawful and reasonable decision; 5) when considering requests for procedural actions (depending on the type of procedural action), the investigating judge must be guided by the following standards of proof: reasonable grounds, reasonable suspicion; beyond reasonable doubt; 6) the guidelines for the application of the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard by the investigating judge when deciding on the choice of preventive measures are not directly provided for by law, but follow from the nature and objectives of this procedure.
Downloads
References
Kret H.R., 2019. The system of standards of proof in the criminal process of Ukraine [Systema standartiv dokazuvannia u kryminalnomu protsesi Ukrainy]. Vìsnik Pìvdennogo regìonalʹnogo centru Nacìonalʹnoï akademìï pravovih nauk Ukraïni – Journal of the South Regional Center of National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, No. 19, pp. 132-239.
Skrypina Yu.V., 2008. Investigating judge in the system of criminal procedural activity (comparative legal study) [Slidchyi suddia v systemi kryminalno-protsesualnoi diialnosti (porivnialno-pravove doslidzhennia)]. Ph.D. dissertation. Yaroslav Mudryi National Law Academy of Ukraine.
Skrypina Yu.V., 2008. Investigating judge in the system of criminal procedural activity (comparative legal study) [Slidchyi suddia v systemi kryminalno-protsesualnoi diialnosti (porivnialno-pravove doslidzhennia)]. Abstract of Ph.D. dissertation. Yaroslav Mudryi National Law Academy of Ukraine.
Nahachevskyi S.V., 2015. Functions of the investigating judge during the pre-trial investigation [Funktsii slidchoho suddi pid chas zdiisnennia dosudovoho rozsliduvannia]. Naukovij vìsnik Lʹvìvsʹkogo deržavnogo unìversitetu vnutrìšnìh sprav. Serìâ ûridična – Scientific Bulletin of Lviv State University of Internal Affairs. Juridical Series, Iss. 3, pp. 301-310.
Filin D., 2005. Functions of the court in the pre-trial stages of the criminal process [Funktsii sudu v dosudovykh stadiiakh kryminalnoho protsesu]. Pravo Ukraïni – Law of Ukraine, No. 1, pp. 63-65.
Sliusarchuk Kh.R., 2017. Standards of proof in criminal proceedings [Standarty dokazuvannia u kryminalnomu provadzhenni]. Abstract of Ph.D. dissertation. Ivan Franko Lviv National University.
Vapniarchuk V.V., 2017. Theory and practice of criminal procedural evidence [Teoriia i praktyka kryminalnoho protsesualnoho dokazuvannia]. Kharkiv: Yurait.
Marchuk N.O., Kasko V.V., Kuibida R.O. et al., 2015. Desk book of a professional judge (criminal proceedings) [Nastilna knyha profesiinoho suddi (kryminalne provadzhennia)]. Kyiv: Art-Dyzain.
Hloviuk I.V. and Stepanenko A.S., 2018. The standard of proof is “reasonable suspicion” in criminal proceedings [Standart dokazuvannia “obgruntovana pidozra” u kryminalnomu provadzhenni]. Pravova pozicìâ – Legal Position, No. 1, pp. 13-20.
Sliusarchuk Kh.R., 2015. The standard of proof in criminal proceedings: what is its idea? [Standart dokazuvannia v kryminalnomu provadzhenni: yaka yoho ideia?]. Porìvnâlʹno-analìtične pravo, No. 3, pp. 219-223.
Ratushna B.P., 2012. The standard of proof as a criterion of reliability of the result of judicial knowledge [Standart dokazuvannia yak kryterii dostovirnosti rezultatu sudovoho piznannia]. Pravo Ukraïni – Law of Ukraine, No. 6, pp. 282-291.
Stepanenko A.S., 2017. The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof in criminal proceedings [Standart dokazuvannia “poza rozumnym sumnivom” u kryminalnomu provadzhenni]. Abstract of Ph.D. dissertation. National University “Odesa Law Academy”.
Sliusarchuk Kh.R., 2017. Standards of proof in criminal proceedings [Standarty dokazuvannia u kryminalnomu provadzhenni]. Ph.D. dissertation. Ivan Franko Lviv National University.
Copyright (c) 2023 R. M. Balats
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
