Abstract

The article aims to reveal the issues of complicity with an unidentified person and to analyze the peculiarities of the application of this institute in the practise of the courts of all levels after the plenary session of the Supreme Court of Lithuania on January 6, 2009 when the position was formed. The issues include assumptions based on court decisions, a possible breach of the presumption of innocence against an unidentified person, and the principle of the inevitability of criminal liability is also discussed. The analysis highlighted the incompatibility of some court decisions with the provisions of criminal law, the importance of the wording used by courts and pre-trial officers, prosecutors for the presumption of innocence, and the need to maintain a balance when convicting an identified accused who was associated with an unidentified person.

Highlights

  • The article aims to reveal the issues of complicity with an unidentified person and to analyze the peculiarities of the application of this institute in the practise of the courts of all levels after the plenary session of the Supreme Court of Lithuania on January 6, 2009 when the position was formed

  • The issues include assumptions based on court decisions, a possible breach of the presumption of innocence against an unidentified person, and the principle of the inevitability of criminal liability is discussed

  • The analysis highlighted the incompatibility of some court decisions with the provisions of criminal law, the importance of the wording used by courts and pre-trial officers, prosecutors for the presumption of innocence, and the need to maintain a balance when convicting an identified accused who was associated with an unidentified person

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo Teismo plenarinės sesijos nutartis, kurioje pasisakyta, kad bendrininkavimas su nenustatytu asmeniu yra įmanomas, buvo priimta prieš 11 metų, tačiau iki šiol teismų praktika nagrinėjamu klausimu nėra vienoda. Kad apie nenustatyto asmens pakankamą atsakomybei amžių, gebėjimą suvokti ir valdyti savo veiksmus, jo susitarimą su kaltinamuoju bei tyčios turinį teismas gali spręsti iš byloje surinktų įrodymų ir nustatytų faktinių aplinkybių specifikos

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.