辩护人在因涉嫌犯有正式罪行而被逮捕期间的参与

O. Kutcher
{"title":"辩护人在因涉嫌犯有正式罪行而被逮捕期间的参与","authors":"O. Kutcher","doi":"10.17721/2413-5372.2019.3/206-214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Apprehension of a person on suspicion of committing of an official crime contains a potential threat to the law enforcement bodies of the requirements of Criminal procedural code of Ukraine in order to achieve short-term media effect in the demonstration of \"effective struggle\" with white-collar Crime. However, there are no procedural errors under the active position of the protection party, as a rule, offset the evidence collected in violation of the current criminal procedure legislation, which results from the adoption by the courts of Ukraine of corrective proceedings.\n\nThe purpose of the article is to study procedural issues arising in connection with law enforcement agencies to detain a person suspected of committing a crime.\n\nThe defender's participation in the stage of detention is important, because at this stage, a person who is potentially is suspected in the committing of official crime is especially in need of skilled legal assistance. Often, after the actual detention, questioning persons, recognitions, and on the petition of detained investigators are misled by explaining that the legal aid to the defender is granted from the moment of announcement of the detention protocol.\n\nIn the context of applicable provisions of art. 208 the Criminal procedural code of Ukraine confirmed the correctness of the opinion on the wrongness of some detentores committed during the last time. In particular, there are numerous cases of detention of heads of central executive authorities (during the session of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine), the deputies (during the session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine or immediately after) for crimes committed by the weeks, Months, years ago.\n\nIn practice, the defender does not provide access to a person who was delayed to the \"crime scene\" or \"under the hot\" and delivered to the pre-trial investigation agency, which needed immediate legal aid. The solution to this problem is seen in the rapid actions of the defender to provide the widest possible public publicity of the mentioned illegal actions of the pre-trial investigation agency.\n\nLegislative regulation requires the definition of the meaning of \"an authorized service person\", which has the right to conduct detention without the ruling of an investigative judge or if any. It is argued that such a category of persons should include employees of the national police, security authorities, bodies controlling adherence to tax legislation, detectives unit, internal control unit National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, bodies of state Bureau of Investigation, bodies of State Border guard Service of Ukraine etc.\n\n An important aspect of providing legal assistance to a person arrested on suspicion of committing an official crime is the need to find out all the information about the person with the security and the circumstances of the detention: the actual time, place, or other persons who stayed with him or the grounds for detention and procedural rights have been reported, whether the video (photo-) shooting, which was seized during the detention, whether a personal search was held or any documents were selected, whether the explanations were selected or under-protective any investigative actions, etc.\n\nThe decision on further procedural behaviour should be taken only after the discussion with the client of the protection position, clarification of procedural rights and art. 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine. In the event that the customer agrees to give evidence, the lawyer clarifies the procedure for questioning the suspect, his rights, to discuss the contents of the testimony, questions to be seen.","PeriodicalId":399656,"journal":{"name":"Herald of criminal justice","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Defender's participation during apprehension on suspicion of committing an official crime\",\"authors\":\"O. Kutcher\",\"doi\":\"10.17721/2413-5372.2019.3/206-214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Apprehension of a person on suspicion of committing of an official crime contains a potential threat to the law enforcement bodies of the requirements of Criminal procedural code of Ukraine in order to achieve short-term media effect in the demonstration of \\\"effective struggle\\\" with white-collar Crime. However, there are no procedural errors under the active position of the protection party, as a rule, offset the evidence collected in violation of the current criminal procedure legislation, which results from the adoption by the courts of Ukraine of corrective proceedings.\\n\\nThe purpose of the article is to study procedural issues arising in connection with law enforcement agencies to detain a person suspected of committing a crime.\\n\\nThe defender's participation in the stage of detention is important, because at this stage, a person who is potentially is suspected in the committing of official crime is especially in need of skilled legal assistance. Often, after the actual detention, questioning persons, recognitions, and on the petition of detained investigators are misled by explaining that the legal aid to the defender is granted from the moment of announcement of the detention protocol.\\n\\nIn the context of applicable provisions of art. 208 the Criminal procedural code of Ukraine confirmed the correctness of the opinion on the wrongness of some detentores committed during the last time. In particular, there are numerous cases of detention of heads of central executive authorities (during the session of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine), the deputies (during the session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine or immediately after) for crimes committed by the weeks, Months, years ago.\\n\\nIn practice, the defender does not provide access to a person who was delayed to the \\\"crime scene\\\" or \\\"under the hot\\\" and delivered to the pre-trial investigation agency, which needed immediate legal aid. The solution to this problem is seen in the rapid actions of the defender to provide the widest possible public publicity of the mentioned illegal actions of the pre-trial investigation agency.\\n\\nLegislative regulation requires the definition of the meaning of \\\"an authorized service person\\\", which has the right to conduct detention without the ruling of an investigative judge or if any. It is argued that such a category of persons should include employees of the national police, security authorities, bodies controlling adherence to tax legislation, detectives unit, internal control unit National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, bodies of state Bureau of Investigation, bodies of State Border guard Service of Ukraine etc.\\n\\n An important aspect of providing legal assistance to a person arrested on suspicion of committing an official crime is the need to find out all the information about the person with the security and the circumstances of the detention: the actual time, place, or other persons who stayed with him or the grounds for detention and procedural rights have been reported, whether the video (photo-) shooting, which was seized during the detention, whether a personal search was held or any documents were selected, whether the explanations were selected or under-protective any investigative actions, etc.\\n\\nThe decision on further procedural behaviour should be taken only after the discussion with the client of the protection position, clarification of procedural rights and art. 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine. In the event that the customer agrees to give evidence, the lawyer clarifies the procedure for questioning the suspect, his rights, to discuss the contents of the testimony, questions to be seen.\",\"PeriodicalId\":399656,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Herald of criminal justice\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Herald of criminal justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17721/2413-5372.2019.3/206-214\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Herald of criminal justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2413-5372.2019.3/206-214","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

逮捕涉嫌公务犯罪的人对乌克兰刑事诉讼法要求的执法机关具有潜在的威胁,目的是在与白领犯罪进行“有效斗争”的示范中取得短期的媒介效果。但是,在保护方的积极立场下,通常没有程序错误,抵消了违反现行刑事诉讼立法收集的证据,这是乌克兰法院采用纠正程序的结果。该条的目的是研究与执法机构拘留涉嫌犯罪的人有关的程序问题。辩护人在拘留阶段的参与是重要的,因为在这个阶段,一个可能被怀疑犯有官方罪行的人特别需要熟练的法律援助。通常,在实际拘留之后,讯问人、承认和根据被拘留的调查人员的请求而被误导,因为他们解释说,从宣布拘留议定书的那一刻起就向辩护人提供法律援助。在适用条款的范围内。208 .乌克兰的《刑事诉讼法》证实了关于上次拘留期间一些被拘留者所犯错误的意见是正确的。特别是,有许多中央行政机关首脑(在乌克兰部长内阁会议期间)和代表(在乌克兰最高拉达会议期间或之后不久)因几星期、几个月、几年前犯下的罪行而被拘留的案件。实际上,辩护人不允许接触被推迟到“犯罪现场”或“在高温下”并被移交给需要立即法律援助的审前调查机构的人。解决这一问题的办法在于辩护人迅速采取行动,尽可能广泛地向公众宣传审前调查机构的上述违法行为。立法条例要求对“授权服务人员”的含义作出定义,授权服务人员有权在没有调查法官裁决的情况下进行拘留,如果有的话。有人认为,这类人员应包括国家警察、安全当局、监督遵守税法的机构、侦探单位、内部控制单位、乌克兰国家反腐败局、国家调查局机构、乌克兰国家边防服务局等机构的雇员。向因涉嫌犯下官方罪行而被捕的人提供法律援助的一个重要方面是,需要查明有关安全人员和拘留情况的所有资料:报告了他的实际时间、地点或其他与他在一起的人或拘留的理由和程序权利,是否在拘留期间扣押了录像(照片)拍摄,是否进行了个人搜查或选择了任何文件,是否选择了解释或采取了保护下的任何调查行动,等等。只有在与保护立场的当事人讨论之后,才能决定进一步的程序行为。澄清程序性权利和艺术。乌克兰宪法第63条。在客户同意提供证据的情况下,律师澄清询问嫌疑人的程序,他的权利,讨论证词的内容,可以看到的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Defender's participation during apprehension on suspicion of committing an official crime
Apprehension of a person on suspicion of committing of an official crime contains a potential threat to the law enforcement bodies of the requirements of Criminal procedural code of Ukraine in order to achieve short-term media effect in the demonstration of "effective struggle" with white-collar Crime. However, there are no procedural errors under the active position of the protection party, as a rule, offset the evidence collected in violation of the current criminal procedure legislation, which results from the adoption by the courts of Ukraine of corrective proceedings. The purpose of the article is to study procedural issues arising in connection with law enforcement agencies to detain a person suspected of committing a crime. The defender's participation in the stage of detention is important, because at this stage, a person who is potentially is suspected in the committing of official crime is especially in need of skilled legal assistance. Often, after the actual detention, questioning persons, recognitions, and on the petition of detained investigators are misled by explaining that the legal aid to the defender is granted from the moment of announcement of the detention protocol. In the context of applicable provisions of art. 208 the Criminal procedural code of Ukraine confirmed the correctness of the opinion on the wrongness of some detentores committed during the last time. In particular, there are numerous cases of detention of heads of central executive authorities (during the session of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine), the deputies (during the session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine or immediately after) for crimes committed by the weeks, Months, years ago. In practice, the defender does not provide access to a person who was delayed to the "crime scene" or "under the hot" and delivered to the pre-trial investigation agency, which needed immediate legal aid. The solution to this problem is seen in the rapid actions of the defender to provide the widest possible public publicity of the mentioned illegal actions of the pre-trial investigation agency. Legislative regulation requires the definition of the meaning of "an authorized service person", which has the right to conduct detention without the ruling of an investigative judge or if any. It is argued that such a category of persons should include employees of the national police, security authorities, bodies controlling adherence to tax legislation, detectives unit, internal control unit National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, bodies of state Bureau of Investigation, bodies of State Border guard Service of Ukraine etc. An important aspect of providing legal assistance to a person arrested on suspicion of committing an official crime is the need to find out all the information about the person with the security and the circumstances of the detention: the actual time, place, or other persons who stayed with him or the grounds for detention and procedural rights have been reported, whether the video (photo-) shooting, which was seized during the detention, whether a personal search was held or any documents were selected, whether the explanations were selected or under-protective any investigative actions, etc. The decision on further procedural behaviour should be taken only after the discussion with the client of the protection position, clarification of procedural rights and art. 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine. In the event that the customer agrees to give evidence, the lawyer clarifies the procedure for questioning the suspect, his rights, to discuss the contents of the testimony, questions to be seen.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信