THE EROSION OF THE SALDUZ DOCTRINE IN THE CASES OF IBRAHIM AND OTHERS V. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND BEUZE V. BELGIUM

The so-called Salduz doctrine that concerns the right to a fair trial and the right to the defense attorney emerged from the case of Salduz v. Turkey, decided on the part of the European Court of Human Rights where the Grand Chamber found the violation of Article 6, paragraph 3(c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In this connection, the aim of this paper is twofold. In the first place, the paper aims to demonstrate how the European Court of Human Rights has overturned the two main tenents of the so-called Salduz doctrine derived from its landmark case of Salduz v. Turkey in its later Judgments delivered in the case of Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom and the case of Beuze v. Belgium. The two tenets derived from the Salduz doctrine being examined in the paper are the right to access to the defense attorney as a rule during pre-trial proceedings and the absolute exclusionary rule. In the second place, the paper aims to offer a critique of the standard of compelling reasons employed in the Ibrahim Judgment. In order to achieve its aim, this paper primarily analyses the jurisprudence of the European Human Court of Human Rights in the cases of Salduz v. Turkey, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom, and Beuze v. Belgium. Besides, the paper also touches upon other judgments of the European Court of Human Rights related to its subject. The paper in question, therefore, primarily relies on the case-law method in achieving its aims. The paper concludes that in overturning the Salduz doctrine in relation to aspects examined in the paper, the European Court of Human Rights has exacerbated the legal standing of the person against whom criminal proceedings are being conducted.

The Right of a Defense Attorney to Visit as a Prerequisite for the Effective Defense Case Strategy Development during the Preliminary Investigation

The development and implementation of a successful case strategy is one of the priority tasks for a attorney in the course of a preliminary investigation. The paper examines the question of what factors favorably influence the formation of a successful case strategy by the defense attorney at the stage of preliminary investigation. The author argues that the right of a defender to visit his client as provided by the legislator is a prerequisite for an attorney to build up an effective position to protect the rights and legitimate interests of the client, in accordance with which the content of his future work is determined. The paper also examines the problem of the lack of appropriate conditions provided for by law for organizing a meeting between an attorney and his client in the investigation and inquiry bodies, and offers practical recommendations to strengthen the guarantees of the independence of an attorney during a preliminary investigation.

PECULIARITIES OF PARTICIPATION OF DEFENDER IN THE COURT PROCEEDINGS OF CRIMINAL CASE IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Актуальность темы исследования обусловлена тем, что немаловажное значение в уголовном судопроизводстве имеет правильное толкование процессуального положения защитника в судебном разбирательстве в суде первой инстанции. В статье охарактеризована степень участия защитника на рассматриваемой стадии уголовного процесса: исследование им доказательств; заявление ходатайств; изложение суду своего мнения по существу обвинения и его доказанности; выступление в судебных прениях. The relevance of research topic lies in the fact that the correct interpretation of procedural position of a defense attorney in court proceedings in the court of first instance is of no small importance in criminal proceedings. The article describes the degree of participation of defense attorney at the considered stage of criminal process: his research of evidence; application of petitions; presenting to the court his opinion on the merits of accusation and it's proof; speech in judicial pleadings.

Strength Versus Sensitivity: The Impact of Attorney Gender on Juror Perceptions and Trial Outcomes in a Rape Case

We examined the impact of attorney gender on perceptions of a criminal rape trial. Community members ( N = 208) read a trial summary describing a rape scenario in which the gender of the prosecuting and defense attorney were manipulated. The results revealed indirect effects of prosecuting and defense attorney gender on verdict through perceptions of characteristics related to attorney competency. Qualitative analyses further showed that the terms “strength” and “powerful” were central to juror perceptions of male attorneys, whereas the terms “sensitive” and “sympathy” were central when the attorneys were female.

THE ROLE OF DEFENDER IN THE PRODUCTION OF SEPARATE INVESTIGATIVE ACTIONS AT THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION STAGE

Актуальность темы исследования заключается в том, что на сегодняшний день отсутствует единое мнение ученых-процессуалистов относительно роли защитника при производстве следственных действий на стадии предварительного расследования. В статье охарактеризовано участие защитника в контексте проведении некоторых следственных действий - обыск, предъявление для опознания, допрос и производство судебной экспертизы. The relevance of the research topic lies in the fact that today there is no consensus among procedural scientists regarding the role of the defense attorney in the conduct of investigative actions at the stage of preliminary investigation. The article describes the participation of a defense attorney in the context of certain investigative actions - search, presentation for identification, interrogation and forensic examination.

Some Issues Related to the Implementation of the Right to Protection by Individuals in Respect of Whom Criminal Proceedings Are Carried Out to Prove Them Guilty of Committing a Crime

Introduction: the article deals with the issues of protection of the rights and freedoms of persons against whom criminal proceedings are carried out to prove them guilty of committing a crime; these issues have always been in the focus of attention of the progressive world community and the legislator. Aims: to analyze the legislation and law enforcement practice of Russia and some other countries in the field of the implementation of the right to protection by persons against whom criminal procedural activities are carried out to prove them guilty of committing a crime, to identify problem issues of a legal nature in this field, and to formulate scientifically substantiated recommendations to address them (minimization). Methods: the dialectical method of scientific knowledge forms the methodological basis of our study. We also use the following methods of scientific cognition: systematic, formal-logical, comparative-legal, etc. Results: the practice of ensuring the right to protection from suspicion or charge, including the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, shows that not all issues of legal regulation in this area have been resolved to a degree that satisfies science and practice; human rights established by international legal standards are still being violated, the principle of adversarial parties in criminal proceedings is not implemented to the fullest extent, especially in pre-trial proceedings. Discussion: currently, the following issues are debatable: about the possibility of participation of the defender before an official suspicion or charge is brought against the person in an initiated criminal case (from the moment of the beginning of the implementation of procedural actions against a person, aimed at verifying the report of a crime and the involvement of the person in the commission of this crime, before the initiation of a criminal case, as well as from the moment of the implementation of a procedural action in an initiated criminal case affecting the rights and freedoms of the person against whom it is being carried out, and aimed at proving them guilty of committing the crime); about the possible participation of another person as a defender upon the request of the defendant, as well as the scope of the requirements such persons should comply with, and a set of criteria, according to which a decision should be made to allow the individual who does not have the status of defense attorney to act as a defender. Conclusions: based on the results of the study, we formulate proposals for improving the criminal procedure legislation aimed at expanding the scope of possible participation of a defender in criminal proceedings at the stage before the official suspicion or charge is brought, and determining the procedure for considering applications for allowing other persons who do not have the status of defense attorney to act as a defender. Keywords: Criminal prosecution; defender; defense attorney; petition

Mistrust as Grounds for Recusation

Traditionally, the grounds for recusation are objective circumstances established in the course of criminal proceedings, which exclude the participation of certain subjects in the trial, regardless of the discretion and expression of the will of the parties. The paper substantiates that "other circumstances giving grounds to believe that they are personally, directly or indirectly, interested in the outcome of this criminal case" provided for by Part 2 of Art. 61 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation as a basis for challenging a judge and other persons do not imply the mandatory establishment of interest, it is enough that there are circumstances giving grounds to believe its existence. It is in this interpretation of the law that the general idea underlying the institution of recusation is realized, i.e. ensuring confidence in the composition of the court. Ignoring mistrust in the composition of the court as a basis for recusation leads to violations of the law when resolving recusations in the event of an interpersonal conflict in court, when establishing a corporate relationship between a party and the composition of the court, when recalling a defense attorney, etc.

Separate Grounds for the Obligatory Involvement of a Defense Counsel in a Criminal Case as a Procedural Safeguard

Despite the desire of the domestic legislator to get away from the elements of the accusatory bias in criminal proceedings, at the pre-trial stages the rights and possibilities of the prosecution are much wider than the defense. That is why the participation of the defense attorney in the pre-trial stages of the criminal proceedings is becoming more relevant and serves as a procedural guarantee both to ensure the adversarial process of the parties and to ensure the suspect (accused) the right to defense. The grounds for the mandatory participation of a defense counsel may also arise in judicial stages, where the principle of adversarial process of the parties should be ensured by providing equal procedural opportunities to the parties. The normative consolidation of the grounds for the mandatory participation of a defender is not entirely flawless, in connection with which, the author considers some of them through the prism of providing appropriate procedural guarantees to the person against whom criminal prosecution is carried out. As a result of the study of the grounds specified in paragraph 3.1, 5–8 part 1 of Art. 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the author came to the conclusion that it is necessary to ensure the mandatory participation of counsel in pre-trial proceedings, as well as in the absence of the accused (defendant) in court proceedings.

ON THE POSSIBILITY OF RECALLING AN APPEAL OR CASSATION COMPLAINT OF THE DEFENDER TO THE ACCUSED, CONVICTED

The problems of litigation stages become ever more pressing for their participants, as amendments to the criminal procedural legislation in effect are very frequent. The developing a legal position on one or the other law-related situation, to say nothing about exclusive legal issues, is not something that can be done in a day, and the situation where the judges do not have the same position on an issue is especially upsetting. The legal issue of ability (inability) by the accused, by the convicted to withdraw the appeal or cassation appeal of the defense lawyer is one of those. The fact is obvious and undeniable that in the court practice, this issue was already being resolved multiple time, yet no clear single legal position was developed for the problem. Thus, the panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Court in its decision as of 10.05.2018 in case No. 462/4125/16к (proceedings No. 51-357км17) concluded that, by virtue of the requirements of Part 1 of Art. 403, Art. 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the petition of the convicted person to refuse the cassation appeal of the defense lawyer cannot be considered in the court of cassation, since another person applied, and not the person who filed the complaint. At the same time, the decision of 03.07.2018 of the panel of judges of the First Court Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court (case No. 448/208/15к, proceedings No. 51-3132км18) contains the opposite conclusion. In particular, that the suspect, the accused or the convicted person has the right to carry out procedural actions and refuse a complaint filed in his interests, unless the participation of a defense lawyer is mandatory or the person is in such a vulnerable position that calls into question the voluntariness of such actions. Similar legal positions have been expressed in other judgments of the Court. Due to the disagreement of the panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber with such conclusions, on September 17, 2020, the decisions of this situation were submitted to the Joint Chamber for consideration, and a corresponding appeal was sent to the members of the Scientific Advisory Council. My own considerations, as a member of the Scientific Advisory Council at the Supreme Court, were set out in the scientific opinion of 25.12.2020, so I will try to share them also with the scientific community and a wide range of practicing lawyers. Based on the results of the scientific and practical search, it was proved that the current statement of Part 1 of Art. 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine requires immediate alignment with the procedural rights of a suspect, accused, convicted person, acquitted person. As well as a defense attorney and with the requirements of such principles of criminal proceedings as discretion, ensuring the suspect, the accused have the right to defense, the adversarial nature of the parties and the freedom to present their evidence and in proving their credibility before the court. The criminal procedural law cannot and should not provide for the obligatory refusal of a cassation appeal by a defense attorney, presented in the interests of an accused, a convicted person, exclusively by the same person - a defense attorney. The participation of a defense attorney in criminal proceedings does not limit the procedural rights of both the suspect, the accused, and the convicted, acquitted. The accused, the convicted person has the right to withdraw the appeal or cassation complaint of the defense lawyer. Restriction of the right to withdraw an appeal or cassation complaint of a defense attorney by an accused or a convicted person may take place in two cases. In particular, if there are grounds for the mandatory participation of a defense attorney in criminal proceedings. And/or if the defense attorney proves that he/she has a justified conviction about the fact of self-incrimination by the accused or convicted , which gives him grounds to take a position that will be different from the will of the accused, convicted, including when appealing court decisions in the appeal and cassation procedure.