ANTI-PATTERNS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDING: DOES JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS NEED A STAGE «PREPARATORY PROCEEDING»

Abstract

«Preparatory proceeding» as a stage of judicial proceeding, must reflect their role, which cannot be an imposition on the overall judicial proceeding. Each stage of the process has its own tasks and goals. It is impossible to identify the stages of the process, as their semantic load is different and aimed at achieving a different goal. Obviously, all of the court’s preparatory actions must be aimed at organizing future trial. The rights of the parties and participants of criminal proceedings must be taken into account, who could file their petitions and statements before the beginning of the trial, regarding the measures to ensure the criminal process, provision of evidence and notification of the line of defense and prosecution in the trial. Such actions can obviously be accomplished without any separate stages of proceeding, since most court cases do not need the separate attention of the court to achieve the purposes of organizing the trial. In its current legislative meaning, «Preparatory proceeding» accordingly is an obvious anti-pattern of the criminal process, because it has lost all its necessary elements and procedures, which should have contributed to the proceeding. The mechanical administration of justice at this stage of the process merely fulfills a procedural rite of passage. In fact, this stage of the process has become a rudiment that delays criminal proceedings. In the article the author proposes eliminating such stage of the trial as «Preparatory proceeding» or transforming it into an optional stage (at the discretion of the court) to provide judicial proceedings with more effective means. Additionally European legislation, in which even if the stage of proceedings such as «Preparatory proceeding» is inherent, is also being analyzed, it is effective and necessary only where it is seen by the judge as reasonable. It is common sense and reasonable independence in decision-making that Ukrainian criminal procedure lacks. The implementation of such innovations is bound to affect both the efficiency of the court proceedings and to improve the procedure of the court proceedings itself. In addition, such changes will not affect the scope of rights of the parties to criminal proceedings; on the contrary, the parties to criminal proceedings and its participants may exercise their rights regarding the organization of the process and its course either in a free form before or at the first court hearing, by filing petitions, applications and relevant evidence or at the first court session. It is possible to create normative mechanisms based on the example of the European legislation, which would allow the presiding judge at his discretion, depending on the circumstances of criminal proceedings, to conduct preparatory proceedings or immediately move to the stage of trial. Key words: criminal procedure, criminal proceeding, preparatory proceeding, judicial proceeding, effective judicial proceeding, anti-pattern.