Oscar Wilde on Trial: The Criminal Proceedings, from Arrest to Imprisonment by Joseph Bristow (review)

The article is devoted to the study of the concept of time limits in criminal pre-trial proceedings. Attention is drawn to the fact that the issue of determining time limits at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings remains insufficiently developed, creating conditions for ambiguous interpretation of their content. It is emphasized that it is impossible to formulate any definition without identifying and substantiating its essential features. It is noted that time limits in criminal pre-trial proceedings are a complex legal category that reflects not only the time dimension of procedural activity. It is proven that time limits are inherently normative, as they are established by the norms of criminal procedural law and procedural decisions of authorized entities at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings, and may also result from agreements between the parties within the framework of reconciliation and guilty plea agreements. It has been substantiated that proper legal regulation of time limits is a necessary condition for ensuring the rule of law, procedural economy, and the implementation of the principle of reasonable time limits in criminal proceedings. It is stated that time limits are mandatory in nature, but their observance is carried out taking into account the rules of disposability, which ensures a balance between legal certainty and flexibility in the application of the law. It is emphasized that time limits in pre-trial criminal proceedings can be expressed in both «rigid» (specific) and «flexible» (assessment) forms. It is argued that deadlines in pre-trial criminal proceedings perform not only a regulatory but also a guarantee function, acting as a key element of the mechanism for protecting the fundamental rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests of participants in criminal proceedings. It is noted that strict time limits ensure the stability and predictability of the process, while flexible, in particular reasonable, time limits ensure the effectiveness of the investigation. It is argued that the decisive feature of time limits in pre-trial criminal proceedings is to ensure the effectiveness of criminal pre-trial proceedings, as well as to guarantee the rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests of individuals. It is concluded that the concept of «time limits in criminal pre-trial proceedings» should reflect all of their essential features.

The author states that modern social development is based on humanistic ideas, which underpin the policy for the liberalization of modern criminal and criminal procedure legislations, and analyzes the corresponding amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. This analysis proves the relevance of researching the methodological foundations of determining the goal of Russian criminal proceedings. As philosophy teaches us, the goal of any activity is determined by external factors and should thus be derived from them. At the same time, the organization of the work of actors «within» the system presupposes setting corresponding goals. Applying the logic of scientific cognition «from general to specific» to the criminal process, the author proves that it is necessary to initially determine its purpose at the highest possible level of generalization. After that, the purpose should be interpreted in practical terms, i.e. it is necessary to set the goal and objectives of criminal proceedings. It is noted that the purpose of criminal proceedings - protection against criminal infringements - determines the goal of criminal procedure activities - the implementation of this protection. Such are the dialectic features of the goal manifested in the combination of specific and general characteristics. At the same time, a goal needs to be specific enough, and not too general. The author supports the approach of the lawmakers used in Part 2, Art. 2 of the Model Criminal Procedure Code for the CIS countries, which determines the results that the bodies responsible for criminal procedures should strive to achieve. It is stated that in the countries of the Romano-Germanic legal system the goal of criminal court proceedings is considered to be reached if the guilty party is determined and the just criminal law norms are applied to this party in the form of punishment, whereas in the Anglo-Saxon legal family the goal of criminal proceedings consists in settling the conflict between the victim and the perpetrator. Besides, the author proves that the objectives of criminal court proceedings reflect the specific features of criminal procedure instrumentarium, while the results of reaching their goals are of criminal law nature since they are determined by the factors that are external in relation to the criminal proceedings. Based on this, the author presents the formulation of the goal of criminal proceedings as well as the results of reaching it.

This article examines the issue of the procedure and forms of use of specialized knowledge in criminal proceedings. It is noted that the main tools of cognitive activities for the investigation of criminal offenses are investigative (search) actions aimed at finding traces of a criminal offense, their research and the formation of court evidence. An analysis of the opinions of scientists regarding the evolution of forms of using special knowledge in criminal justice at different historical stages was carried out. Attention is drawn to the gradual expansion of the forms of use of specialized knowledge which is being enshrined in the current criminal procedure legislation. The author analyzes the scientific studies which reveal the essence of special knowledge, its importance for establishing the circumstances of a criminal offense, the subjects who can use special knowledge, and the procedural documents which record the process of application of special knowledge and its evidentiary value. The author compares the requirements which must be met by a person involved in criminal proceedings as a specialist and an expert. The author shows significant differences in the requirements for these participants to criminal proceedings. On this basis, it is proved that a specialist’s opinion may be consistent with an expert’s opinion, provided that all other requirements are the same. Since the qualification requirements for a person who has special knowledge in a certain field and is involved in criminal proceedings as a specialist and an expert are different, and the regulatory procedure for their involvement in criminal proceedings is different, it is considered impossible to put an equal sign between the specialist’s opinion and the expert’s opinion as a proven source of evidence. The author substantiates the proposal to change Part 3 of Article 214 of the CPC of Ukraine and to restate it in the following wording: “In order to clarify the circumstances of a criminal offense, prior to entering information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations, it may be 3) an expert opinion may be obtained...” and so on. This will contribute to the formation of reliable and high-quality evidence in criminal misdemeanor proceedings

The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA) aims to help vulnerable and intimidated witnesses give the best evidence they can in criminal proceedings. This is to be achieved by allowing certain witnesses access to a range of special measures where it is felt that their evidence will thereby be improved. Reducing the stress associated with a court case will, it is hoped, mean that vulnerable witnesses are more confident and give better testimony. In addition, individuals who in the past would have been unable to participate in proceedings and were therefore considered incompetent to give evidence will now have a voice. The reasoning behind the YJCEA is clear. In cases of abuse in particular, the prosecution case is often based almost entirely on the evidence of one witness, often a child. It is important that what evidence there is in such situations is presented as well as possible. In the past, witnesses and complainants in criminal proceedings have not always been given the help they deserved when giving evidence. Over the years, many measures have been introduced to render the court process less intimidating, deriving mainly from the experiences of the judiciary in both criminal and family proceedings. These include familiarization visits, live-links and the like. The YJCEA will now bring many of these measures under one statutory roof. It is hoped, first, that this will encourage greater consistency in their application and, secondly, that criminal proceedings will be demystified for those that have to go through them. Many believe it is a step that is long overdue. Thus, vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, who might previously have been considered unable to give evidence in criminal proceedings, or at a disadvantage in giving evidence, will have a proper opportunity to do so. Such witnesses include the mentally and physically disabled, those in fear of intimidation such as the complainant of racial or domestic violence, and of course children. Rendering the court process less traumatic for those who have already been traumatized enough and maximizing the numbers of complainants and witnesses who can actually give evidence is commendable. However, the YJCEA also has its problems and as has been pointed out by Di Birch (2000) 'this is an Act which leaves us in no doubt where our sympathies lie'. The YJCEA is a complex Act that may well have a considerable impact on the way in which criminal proceedings in the UK are handled. I will consider the following areas: (i) interpretation; (ii) special measures and their application; and (iii) areas for concern.

Criminal law means of protection of criminal offenders cooperating with justice are considered. The purpose of this article is to consider the norms of specialized laws, sources of criminal and criminal procedural law of Ukraine, its international obligations as a comprehensive legal basis for ensuring the safety of certain types of participants in criminal proceedings, conditionally united within the category of “cooperating witnesses.” While collaborators with justice expose other persons involved in illegal activities, such cooperation takes place includes a risk of intimidation or retaliation. In order to reduce this risk to a rationally acceptable level, the legislation provides, in addition to protection measures (which technically complicate a possible massacre), also means designed to reduce the impact of violent interference. Such means are procedural methods of overcoming the irreplaceability of participants in criminal proceedings during the trial (testimony “from other people’s words,” judicial interrogation during the pre-trial investigation); criminal law protection of relations of participation in (criminal) proceedings. However, unlike actual witnesses, “cooperating witnesses” enjoy a lower level of criminal protection. Their possible statuses (suspect, accused, convicted, person released from criminal responsibility, acquitted) are not mentioned in Art. 386 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (including threats, blackmail, bribery of a witness, a victim, an expert). Liability for intimidation, torture, murder, etc. of collaborators with justice has a general basis, in isolation from a special purpose (to induce false testimony, revenge, etc.) and generally outside the context of participation in criminal proceedings; there is no responsibility for their bribery. Therefore, the work on the implementation of certain provisions of international treaties of Ukraine in the field of combating corruption and organized crime is not complete. In addition, the criminal-legal protection of participants in criminal proceedings against the illegal inaction of officials of bodies that provide security and against the disclosure of data on the content of relevant measures (Articles 380, 381 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) is formulated in a way that assumes the existence of a cause-and-effect relationship complex of legally significant intermediate events. This puts the subjects of criminal liability in a case-by-case situation and is inconsistent with some recognized approaches in the science of criminal law (namely: theories of equivalence, direct causation).

Relevance. The relevance of the study stems from the fact that the rapid development of new technologies and their introduction into all spheres of social life opens up great prospects for the use of scientific and technological progress in criminal proceedings to ensure full and transparent investigation of various types of crime. Purpose. The purpose of the study is to provide a comprehensive and in-depth examination of the various scientific and technical tools in criminal proceedings, to analyze the effectiveness and expediency of the use of certain technical tools, to study the experience of other countries and to carry out a comparative analysis. Methodology. The formal-legal method led the way, as it enabled a consistent study of the various new technologies used in criminal proceedings and the study of the legal provisions governing the use of such tools. Results. The outcome of the research is a comprehensive study of the most popular scientific and technological means used at all stages of criminal proceedings and by all law enforcement agencies; negative and positive aspects of the use of certain types of scientific and technological means in investigation and prosecution were examined, the experience of using the latest technologies in other countries was examined and a comparative legal analysis was carried out. In addition, the legal framework, which sets out the basic provisions for the use of technical means in the investigation of crimes in different countries, was examined. Conclusions. The practical significance of the research lies in the fact that understanding the specifics of the application of scientific and technical means will help to use them more effectively and reasonably in the process of criminal investigation and court proceedings.

The article analyzes the evaluation of the lawfulness of criminal proceedings (decisions) in criminal and civil proceedings. In the legal regulation of Lithuania there is a strict non-contractual liability of the state, which means that liability of the state raises without the fault of the officers (institutions). The limits of thestrict liability are extremely wide. In this context, one of the essential aspects of addressing the issue of compensation for the damage caused by the pre-trial investigation officers, the prosecutor and the court is to strike the right balance between effective criminal proceedings and the protection of the interests of the injured party. The main objective is to ensure that the limits of the non-contractual liability of the state are not unreasonably extended or unreasonably narrowed. The limits of the non-contractual liability of the state also depends on whether the legality of the actions (decisions) of the criminal proceedings is assessed in the same way or differently in the criminal and civil proceedings. It was revealed that the concepts of violation of criminal procedure and the criteria used in the doctrines of criminal procedure law and civil law to determine the illegality of procedural actions do not coincide. The courts also take the position that the legality of the same acts of criminal proceedings in a criminal and civil cases may be assessed differently. However, the article raises doubts as to whether the opposite assessment of the same act (decision) of criminal proceedings, depending on whether it is assessed in criminal or civil proceedings, is reasonable and does not unduly extend the limits of liability of the State. The author doubts whether such case law is not in conflict with the principles of legal stability, consistency and binding nature of final court decisions, does not unbalance the existing hierarchy of courts and division of competence, as well [...]

This article analyzes the conditions and legal ramifications of application of videoconference in various forms of criminal legal proceedings, highlighting practical issues emerging in arrangement of participation of parties in criminal proceedings via videoconference calls. As a product of digital technologies, videoconference is examined not only as a formal means of communication used by parties to a legal proceeding, but also as one of the means of exercising the right to a fair trial. The object of this research consists of communication and procedural relations arising between the parties to a legal proceeding with application videoconference. The subject of this research covers the entire complex of fairly recent norms for the Russian criminal procedural regulation governing application of videoconference on various stages of criminal proceedings on a case. The article contains practical recommendations by indicators that should be considered in determining optimal forms of participation in a criminal proceeding, as well as actions of parties that must be undertaken if during application of videoconference, the rights of the defendant are violated or the standards of fair trial are not being met. The article complies answers to the most topical questions on videoconference calls, taking into the consideration practical experience of the author, as well as relevant case law of the Russian courts and the European Court of Human Rights. The conclusion is made that application of videoconference is allowable in legal proceedings of the courts of first instance and courts of appeal in criminal cases heard in special order, cassation instance, supervisory instance, in execution of sentence, as well as within the framework of judicial control at pretrial stage in a criminal case, but only if procedural guarantees could be provided to all parties of the proceedings. In a trial by jury such technology is unacceptable.

IntroductionIn the mental health area, the most problematic issues are the involuntary placement of the mentally ill in closed institutions, both under civil and criminal proceedings, and their involuntary treatment. Despite the international efforts of harmonizing measures, the nature and practice of the services still vary from country to country.ObjectivesTo analyse involuntary placement of persons with mental disorders in closed institutions under civil and criminal proceedings, which include both psychiatric hospitals and care institutions.MethodsReview and analysis of regulations and practice of involuntary placement of a person with a mental disorder in a closed institution in the context of Estonian, Finnish, Russian, and English law, health care and social system.ResultsEstonian, Finnish, Russian, and English law distinguish between criminal and civil proceedings regarding involuntary placement of a mentally ill person in a closed institution. However, specifics of the proceedings are different among the countries, e.g. judicial involvement, and deadlines. Also, the provision of forensic mental health services differ among these countries, e.g. in Estonia offenders and non-offenders are kept separately, whilst in England and Russia patients are not distinguished so strictly.ConclusionsThe distinction between involuntary placement of the mentally ill in criminal and civil proceedings is distinguished primarily for the reason that in one case the risk arising from the person is directly realized by committing an unlawful act and in the other case the risk arising from the person is directed at themselves or is not qualified as an unlawful act.

Alongside establishing the procedure for criminal proceedings, a primary objective of criminal procedure legislation is to precisely define the legal status and procedural powers of participants in criminal procedure relations. This involves setting the boundaries of their rights and obligations. Accordingly, particular emphasis should be placed on delineating the subject matter of criminal proceedings by devising a plan to enhance their position, role, and procedural status. The aim of the study is to scrutinize legal issues concerning the exercise of procedural powers by various participants in criminal proceedings and to explore avenues for enhancing the composition of criminal pre-trial proceedings. The article delves into matters concerning the procedural role of the investigator and examines their interaction with the procedural leader and the prosecutor. Special attention is paid to the procedural status of the person in respect of whom a crime report is being checked, the problem of criminal prosecution when checking a crime report is revealed, the roles and functions of an educator and a psychologist are investigated. In addition, the author substantiates the idea of expanding the range of participants in the pre-trial stages. The methodological framework of this work encompasses principles from the general scientific method of cognition, including formal logic, generalization, analysis, and description. It also draws upon methodologies from the fields of general theory of law, criminal procedure, criminology, psychology, pedagogy, logic, and other related sciences. As a result, the following conclusions were drawn. When exploring the primary issues concerning the enhancement of participants' procedural status in pre-trial proceedings, the author proposes considering the following provisions: shifting departmental procedural oversight and prosecutorial supervision in favor of the latter and establishing a unified format for preliminary investigation; engaging the suspect at the initial stage of a criminal case; elucidating the purpose and function of involvement by educators and psychologists in the case; broadening the subject composition by granting individual participants procedural petitioner status.

Coercion is the most important institution of criminal procedural law, which determines not only the directions of restrictive influence, but also the essence of criminal court proceedings. The direct impact on the rights of its participants is accompanied by many theoretical and applied problems. The purpose of this study is to obtain new knowledge about the essence, forms of coercive influence in the conditions of criminal proceedings and the methods of legal support that properly protect and defend the legitimate interests of subjects of criminal procedural relations. Tasks to be solved: study of modern conditions that contribute to a change in the concept of coercion in criminal proceedings and those measures that have a restrictive effect on the legal status of subjects of criminal procedural relations; understanding the trends in the science of criminal procedure, influencing the modern ideas about the measures of coercion and the means of ensuring rights; formation of the author's position on the essence and types of law-limiting and law-enforcement influence in criminal proceedings; putting forward a scientific hypothesis about correcting the essence of criminal procedural coercion; search for grounds for its confirmation and substantiation of conclusions. The study was carried out on the basis of a set of general scientific and specific scientific methods, including dialectics, various types of analysis, synthesis, generalization, logical, systemic and structural, modeling, etc. The results of this study have become scientific knowledge that complements and, in some part, clarifies the concept of the essence of procedural coercion, measures of coercion, their classification, methods of influencing the legal status of subjects of criminal procedural relations, means of legal enforcement that properly guarantee the protection and protection of legal interests. participants in criminal proceedings. On the basis of the results obtained, separate proposals were formulated on improving the legislation in terms of both the formation of measures of procedural coercion, and the means of ensuring protection from legal restrictions. The author's vision of solving some of the problems arising in the case of legal restrictions applied to legal entities is formulated.

The article examines the role of moral and ethical norms in the activities of the court in criminal proceedings, as well as their influence on the content of procedural activities and the results of the administration of justice in criminal proceedings. The actions of the court in criminal proceedings are considered possible to be considered as a special type of socially important activity for resolving social conflicts. Such socially significant activity should be carried out on the basis of moral and ethical norms existing in society, which are a reflection of the ideas of goodness, honor and dignity, integrity, justice, etc. The idea is substantiated that, along with compliance with the principles of judicial proceedings defined in the law, compliance with moral and ethical norms by judges ensures respect and trust in the court and the results of its activities. It is noted that moral and ethical norms are the basis for the formation of the principles of criminal proceedings and are reflected in their content. These norms are also considered as criteria for evaluating court decisions from the standpoint of their compliance with the requirements of justice. The necessity of reflecting moral and ethical norms in formally defined orders and procedures of administration of justice is confirmed. This is done by consolidating such norms in the texts of regulatory legal acts, in particular international legal acts that determine the standards of activity of the court, judges and ethical requirements for their professional activities, etc. It is noted that the operation of moral and ethical norms ensures the independence, impartiality, and integrity of judges in the process of their administration of justice. It is indicated that the further implementation of moral and ethical norms in criminal justice through their legal mediation as its principles is a means of ensuring the integrity of judges and a condition for strengthening public trust in the criminal justice proceedings they carry out and the judicial decisions adopted in the process of administration of justice.

The article examines the procedural status of the court as a participant of criminal proceedings taking into account the specifics of its legal position and the functions to be implemented. The legal status of the court in criminal proceedings by the absence of public or personal interest in the outcome of the criminal case, which not only predetermines the adversarial form of the proceedings, but also guarantees the independence of the judicial authorities in the exercise of justice. The author concludes that the concept of «court» is collective, since on the one hand it is a state institution entering the judicial system, on the other hand - the judge is the bearer of power, considering the criminal case on the merits and decisions provided by law.The judicial system has a sign of instancionnosti, due to its internal hierarchical structure. The existence of judicial bodies predetermines the movement of criminal proceedings, is a structural mechanism for the implementation of the function of internal judicial control and supervision, and also protects the rights and legitimate interests of participants in the criminal Legal proceedings and other interested persons. The powers of the court are considered from the standpoint of the functional criterion, namely: the resolution of the criminal case on the merits; monitoring of the activities of the preliminary investigation bodies; consideration of complaints on actions (inaction) and decisions of officials, conducting proceedings in a criminal case; response to violations of the rights and freedoms of citizens, the principle of legality, established circumstances, which contributed to the commission of a crime by making a private determination or decision, in the course of criminal proceedings.

The article shows the intersectoral links of criminal procedure and penal enforcement legislation, combined at the theoretical level into a single block “legislation on combating crime”. The author examines the correlation of criminal procedure and penal enforcement legislation, continuing the research he started at the end of the last century on this issue. The issues of interaction between the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Executive Code of the Russian Federation are insufficiently studied in legal science, despite the existence of fragmentary links between these codified laws. The factor uniting criminal procedure and penal enforcement legislation is a special criminal enforcement proceedings designed to resolve issues arising during the execution of punishments and other measures of criminal legal impact, and not the main criminal procedure proceedings (criminal proceedings). The purpose and objectives of the study. Identification of the legal nature of the activities regulated by Chapter 47 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation “Execution of sentence”, determination of the possibility and prospects of moving from the Criminal Procedure Code to the Criminal Executive Code the norms of this chapter as the legal basis of criminal executive proceedings carried out outside the criminal case. The methodological basis of the research is the provisions of the general theory of humanities, general theory of law and procedural legal branches. General scientific and private scientific research methods (logical, historical, analysis, synthesis, system-structural, formal-legal, comparative-legal, interpretation or legal interpretation of legal norms) were used in the preparation of the article. The results obtained and the main conclusions. The problem of the correlation of criminal procedure and penal enforcement law at the moment has actually transformed into the problem of choosing a branch of law, a specific codified law that should regulate the activities of the court to consider and resolve issues related to the execution of punishment. Having a criminal-executive nature and being additional to the main criminal proceedings, the criminal-executive proceedings did not receive an appropriate detailed legal regulation within the Criminal Procedure Code, which once again emphasized its specificity and autonomy in the criminal process. In the new legal realities, it makes practical sense to return to the discussion of the problem of determining its place in the penal enforcement legislation.

Starting from the thesis that the society is now undergoing radical changes due to the developing digital technologies and changes in axiological dominants, the author applies the transdisciplinary research method to the analysis of axiological risks of the digitalization of criminal court proceedings. The conclusions are formulated on the basis of subjective analysis, which allows for a subjective assessment of the likelihood of the risk, because this assessment is specifically linked to the multi-factor expert analysis. The author argues for several interconnected points. First, any stage of digitizing the processes of investigation and consideration of criminal cases (automation, digitization, digital transformation) poses risks for its participants, the only difference being that the gravity of possible negative consequences increases at each stage. Secondly, the legal assessment of the risk of digitizing criminal proceedings could be performed by assessing the likelihood of the risk situation — the «risk of the risk», as well as the assessment of the consequences of a risk situation — «the risk of the consequences of the risk». Finally, the underestimation of the risk in the sphere of criminal proceedings is manifold more serious than that in the private branches of law, as the digitization of criminal proceedings, which is one of the most repressive spheres of the functioning of the state, is connected with the necessity of reconsidering the existing procedural guarantees of the rights of a person in terms of their effectiveness and sufficiency. The author proves that the digitization of court proceedings is a priori a risk for the moral foundations of criminal court proceedings. It is stressed that digitization could primarily damage the moral foundations of criminal court proceedings. Using the example of one of the basic principles of criminal proceedings — the freedom of evaluating evidence (Art. 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation) — the author proves that it is necessary to preserve such an ethical category as conscience, which should guide the law enforcer in making decisions.