CC BY
28УДК 343.161.1
ON THE ISSUE OF EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF JURORS
Akhmejanov Farukh Raushanuly
Junior research fellow, Department of Criminal, Criminal Procedure, Criminal Executive Legislation and Judicial Expertise, Institute of Legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan; Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan, e-mail: [email protected]
Birzhanova Dina Mukhtarkyzy
1st year graduate student, Department ofPolitical Science and International Relations, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nazarbayev University; Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan, e-mail: [email protected]
Keywords: jurisdiction; jurors; category of criminal cases; criminal procedure legislation; sentence; inner conviction; impartiality, mixed model.
Abstract. The article contains the analysis of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, regulating the participation of jurors in consideration of criminal cases, as well as law enforcement practice in this field. The authors identified current trends related to changes in the jurisdiction of the court with the participation of jurors. In Kazakhstan the institution of the trial by jury was established with the adoption of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Jurors" dated January 16, 2006, No. 121. As was argued by N. Shaykenov, it is impossible to build an efficient economy without the elevation of law and the court. In this regard, after the Republic of Kazakhstan declared its independence, certain reforms in the legislation were designated. There have been adopted dozens of new laws, in varying degrees aimed at improving the administration of justice.
At the present time it can be stated that the level of applicability of this institution is relatively low. This fact is associated with the existing problematic issues both in terms of the objectivity of the jurors themselves, and in terms of limiting the possibility of taking an impartial decision by jurors under conditions of lack of procedural independence.
Concerning the need to expand the sphere of application of the jury trial in Kazakhstan pursuant to step 21 of the Nation Plan - 100 concrete steps, it is proposed to base on clear juridical criteria in determining the category of cases to be considered by jury trials. The article suggests that the frequent changes in the list of constituent elements of crime are not conducive to the stable development of the institution of trial by jury as a whole.
On the basis of conducted analysis there were identified some legislative provisions that require alterations and additions. In particular this concerns certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 4, 2014, as well as the previously mentioned Law "On Jurors".
In addition, the authors raise questions about the conceptual review of the model of the court procedure with the participation of jurors. In this sense, it is necessary to study the existing classical model ofjury trial in foreign countries.
АЛЦАБИЛЕРДЩ ЦАТЫСУЫМЕН ЭТЕТ1Н СОТТЫЦ СОТТЫЛЫГЫН КЕЦЕЙТУ МЭСЕЛЕС1НЕ ЦАТЫСТЫ
Фарух Раушащлы Ахмеджанов
Казацстан Республикасы Зацнама институтыныц цылмыстыц, цылмыстыц iс-ЖYргiзу, цылмыстыц атцару жэне сот сапартамасы бвл1М1Н1ц KMi зылыми ^u3MemKepi; Казахстан Республикасы, Астана ц., e-mail: [email protected]
Дина М^хтар^ызы Б1ржанова
Назарбаев университетi Гуманитарлыц жэне элеуметтк гылымдар мектебШц «Саясаттану жэне халыцаралыц цатынастар» мамандыгыныц 1-курс магистранты; Казацстан Республикасы, Астана ц., e-mail: [email protected]
TyMh свздер: соттылыц; алцабилер алцасы; цылмыстыц ктердщ категориялары; цылмыстыц iс-ЖYргiзушiлiк зацнама; ук1м; imrn сешм; бейтараптылыц; аралас Yлгi.
Аннотация. Мацалада цылмыстыц iстердi царауга жэне осы саладагы
цуцыццолданушылыц тэж1рибелерге алцабилер алцасыныц цатысуын реттейтт Казацстан Республикасыныц зацнамасы талданган. Алцабилер алцасы цатысатын сот соттылыгыныц взгеру1мен байланысты взект1 Yрдiстердi аныцтау. Казацстанда алцабилер институты 2006 жылы 16 цацтарда «Алцабилер туралы» КР №121 зацыныц цабылдануы арцылы цурылды. Н.Шайкеновтыц айтуынша, цуцыц пен сотты квтермелеуЫз тиiмдi экономиканы цуру мYмкiн емес. Осыган орай КР-ныц ТэуелЫздж алуымен аталган рефор-малар зацнамада кврШс тапты. Эды сотты ЖYзеге асыруды жетiлдiруге багытталган ондаган жаца зацдар цабылданды.
Казiргi тацда аталган институттыц тэжiрибеде айтарлыцтай твмен децгейде цолданылуда. Аталган мэн-жай алцабилердщ вздертщ объективтттне цатысты мэселелермен де, сонымен бiрге алцабилердщ процессуалдыц дербесЫздт жагдайында бей-тарап шешiм цабылдау мYмкiндiгiн шектеумен де байланысты.
Казацстанда алцабилер сотын цолдану аясын кецейту цажеттытне цатысты ¥лт жоспарыныц 100 цадамыныц 21-цадамын орындау Yшiн алцабилер сотыныц царауына жа-татын ктердщ категорияларын аныцтау кезтде тYсiнiктi заци критерийлерге негiзделу усынылады. Алцабилер сотыныц соттылыгы жт взгерт отыруы жалпы алцабилер соты институтыныц турацты дамуына септтн тигiзбейдi деген квзцарас аталып втедi.
Мацалада ЖYргiзiлген талдау негiзiнде взгер^тер мен толыцтырулар енгiзудi талап ететт зацнаманыц кейбiр ережелерi аныцталды. Жекеше тоцталар болсац, олар: КР 2014 жылгы 4 шiлдедегi Кылмыстыц-процестт кодекстщ жэне жогарыда аталган «Алцабилер туралы» КР зацыныц бiрнеше нормалары.
Одан бвлек, авторлар алцабилердщ цатысуымен втетт сот вндiрiсiнiц Yлгiсiн тужырымдамалыц цайта царау мэселелерiне де тоцталып вткен. Бул орайда, шет елдер-де цолданылатын алцабилер сотыныц классикалыц Yлгiсiн зерттеу цажет.
К ВОПРОСУ О РАСШИРЕНИИ ПОДСУДНОСТИ СУДА С УЧАСТИЕМ ПРИСЯЖНЫХ ЗАСЕДАТЕЛЕЙ
Ахмеджанов Фарух Раушанулы
Младший научный сотрудник отдела уголовного, уголовно-процессуального, уголовно-исполнительного законодательства и судебной экспертизы Института законодательства Республики Казахстан; Республика Казахстан, г. Астана, e-mail: [email protected]
Биржанова Дина Мухтаркызы
Магистрант 1 курса специальности «Политология и международные отношения» Школы гуманитарных и социальных наук Назарбаев университета; Республика Казахстан, г. Астана, e-mail: [email protected]
Ключевые слова: подсудность; присяжные заседатели; категория уголовных дел; уголовно-процессуальное законодательство; приговор; внутреннее убеждение; беспристрастность; смешанная модель.
Аннотация. Статья содержит анализ законодательства Республики Казахстан, регламентирующего участие присяжных заседателей в рассмотрении уголовных дел, а также правоприменительной практики в данной области. Выявлены актуальные тенденции, связанные с изменением подсудности суда с участием присяжных. Институт присяжных в Казахстане был создан принятием Закона РК «О присяжных заседателях» от 16 января 2006 года №121. Как утверждал Н. Шайкенов, без возвышения права и суда невозможно построение эффективной экономики. В этой связи с обретением Независимости РК были обозначены указанные реформы в законодательстве. Были приняты десятки новых законов, в той или иной степени направленных на совершенствование отправления правосудия.
На данный момент можно констатировать достаточно низкий уровень применяемости данного института. Данное обстоятельство связывается с имеющимися проблемными вопросами как в части объективности самих присяжных, так и в части ограничения возможности принятия присяжными беспристрастного решения в условиях процессуальной несамостоятельности.
В части необходимости расширения области применения суда присяжных заседателей в Казахстане во исполнение 21 шага Плана нации - 100 конкретных шагов предлагается основываться на понятных юридических критериях при определении категории дел, подсудных судам присяжных. Высказывается позиция о том, что частое изменение перечня подсудных составов не способствует стабильному развитию института присяжных в целом.
Жас галым Mw6epi
В статье на основе проведенного анализа выявлены некоторые положения законодательства, требующие внесения изменений и дополнений. В частности, это касается некоторых норм Уголовно-процессуального кодекса РК от 4 июля 2014 года, а также ранее указанного Закона РК «О присяжных заседателях».
Кроме того, авторами ставятся вопросы концептуального пересмотра модели судопроизводства с участием присяжных заседателей. В этом смысле необходимо изучение существующей в зарубежных странах классической модели суда присяжных.
The institution of the trial by jury represents an important guarantee of the protection of human rights and freedoms. At the same time, the jury trial is an attribute of a democratic society that respects the rights of a free citizen. "The jury teaches each man not to retreat from responsibility for his own actions..." wrote Alexis de Tocqueville [1, p. 448]. In this context, the task to expand the sphere of application of the jury trial, indicated in step 21 of the Nation Plan - 100 concrete steps by the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan N.A. Nazarbayev, appears to be one of the priority areas of improving the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan [2].
Since the institution of jurors in Kazakhstan entered into force on January 1, 2007, its jurisdiction has undergone significant changes. The first jury trial took place in Petropavlovsk on February 12, 2007. From that moment until the end of 2015 the courts with the participation of jurors reviewed a total of 1314 criminal cases.
In recent years we observe a significant decrease in the number of criminal cases considered by jury. So, in 2014 the number of criminal cases considered by jury trial declined by 67.2% in comparison with 2013 (65 vs. 198). With the sentencing were considered 64 cases against 121 persons (190 cases against 322 persons); acquitted 3 persons (33).In 2015 the number of criminal cases considered by jury trial was reduced by another 35.4% (42 vs. 65). With the sentencing were considered 42 cases against 61 persons (64 cases against 121 persons). 2 persons were acquitted (3)1. It should be noted that this trend does not correspond with the taken in the country direction to expand the scope of the jury.
At present, cases that fall within the jurisdiction of courts with the participation of jurors include crimes, for which the death penalty or life imprisonment is prescribed; the cases also include crimes provided for by part 3 of Article 125 (aggravated kidnapping), part 4 of Article 128 (aggravated human trafficking), part 5 of Article 132 (involvement of minor in the criminal activity of criminal
group), part 4 of Article 135 (aggravated trafficking in relation of minors) (Article 631 of the Criminal Procedure Code). It is worth noting that with entry into force from January 1, 2016, the mentioned constituent elements of crime supplemented part 1 of Article 631 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in accordance with the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated October 31, 2016.
At the same time, clause 1 of Article 631 of the Criminal Procedure Code as an exception contains an exhaustive list of constituent elements of crime, the cases about which cannot be considered by the court with jurors. With the decision of legislators the list includes such criminal cases as infringement upon the foundations of the constitutional order and state security, terrorism, illicit drug trafficking and some other offences.
Analyzing the legislator's position on the formation of case categories falling within the jurisdiction the jury trial, it should be noted that a clear juridical criterion in distinguishing one constituent element of crime from the other is absent. In this context, it is proposed to form a single coherent approach to the definition of the categories of criminal offenses, the cases about which can be considered by the court with the participation of jurors. Jurisdiction should be based on a clear juridical criterion, without numerous exceptions, as it is today. It appears that the frequent changes in the list of constituent elements of crime are not conducive to the stable development of the institution of trial by jury as a whole.
In general, the current jurisdiction does not allow the jury trial to ensure the realization of such an important objective as the participation of people in the administration of justice. However, we assume premature the question on the inclusion into the jurisdiction ofjury cases of crimes against the constitutional order and state security, peace and security of mankind, that is often speculated by some experts, because by virtue of the relatively short period of existence of this institution in Kazakhstan, there has not been formed appropriate level of legal culture necessary for this category. This issue requires further scrutiny.
1 Statistical data of the Supreme Court of the RK. Source: http://service.pravstat.kz/- portal of The Committee for Legal statistics and special accounts of the Prosecutor General's office of the RK
In concordance with the previously mentioned step 21 of the Nation Plan, there is need for raising a question on determining the categories of cases that will be mandatory under the participation of jurors. We should note that in the national Criminal Procedure Code such methods of legal regulation have already been used. For instance, Article 67 of the Criminal Procedure Code regulates the cases of compulsory participation of the lawyer in the criminal proceedings. Clause 1 of Article 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires mandatory participation of the prosecutor as a public prosecutor in the main trial with the exception of private prosecution cases.
Along with the determination of categories of cases with the compulsory jurisdiction to the jury trial, it is necessary to study the issue of revision of the court selection procedure. The jury trial should not be considered as one of the alternatives to the court composition, which may or may not be chosen by the defendant's petition. The jury trial must become the only form of court procedure at a certain category of cases [3, p. 9].
Today much criticism raises the question on the frequent cassation of an acquitting concerning cases considered by the courts with the participation of jurors. As a consequence, it is proposed to introduce a ban on the cassation of an acquitting, considering the verdict of the jury final and conclusive.
In accordance with the criminal procedure
legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as a general rule, both convictions and acquittals, passed by the first-instance court on a particular case, may be subject to cancellation in The Court of Appeal. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan provides such grounds for reversal of a criminal case as the one-sidedness and incompleteness of the court investigation; inconsistency of the court conclusions outlined in the judgment and resolution with the actual facts of the case; substantial violation of the criminal procedure law; incorrect application of the criminal law; inconsistency of severity of penalty of crime with the identity of convicted person (Article 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan).
The probability of emergence of the above discussed circumstances in the course of criminal proceedings does not work towards protection of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of parties of the criminal proceedings. Moreover, the introduction of a legislative ban on the review and the subsequent cassation of the acquittal verdict of the court with the participation of jurors will create serious prerequisites for rendering of unfair final decisions, what contradicts the objectives of the criminal proceedings, enshrined in Article 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The rights of offended party will not be protected as well, since they will not be able to appeal to a higher court on grounds of disagreement with the
Mac Fmbrn Mmdepi
decision of the first-instance court. Taking the foregoing into account, such approach appears to be not only inexpedient but also violating the constitutional right of the offended for the judicial protection of their rights and freedoms.
Alongside with that, taking into account the presence of special procedure of cases on jury trial in the Criminal Procedure Code, there are some regulated exemptions from the general provisions. In particular, the acquittal or court decision on termination of criminal case cannot be cancelled under cassational procedure. Meanwhile, the revision of the conviction under cassational procedure is allowed, but on condition that it is not associated with a possible further deterioration of the situation of the convicted person (Article 666 of the Criminal Procedure Code). Therefore, certain legal safeguards are created to ensure the stability of the verdicts handed down by the courts with the participation of jurors.
It should be noted that the Criminal Procedure Code lays down the possibility of cassation of an acquitting handed down by the jury trial, but this should not be used by the prosecution with the aim to achieve a favorable conviction. Practice shows that in order to cancel unfavorable decision the prosecution uses various ways and means, sometimes even not corresponding to the law.
Very often, as a basis are used specified violations that affected or could have affected the court decision, in particular, irregularities in the formation of the jury (Article 662 of the Criminal Procedure Code). In the meantime, the Criminal Procedure Code does not contain an exhaustive list of irregularities. This vague wording results in its different interpretations. For example, in the way of such violations, public prosecutors indicate a potential juror's non-disclosure of information about criminal conviction of his close relatives.
The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Jurors" does not provide the requirement for potential jurors of inadmissibility of outstanding or unexpunged conviction of close relatives, stating only the candidate's absence of prior conviction (Article 10 of the Law). Therefore, the information on convictions of close relatives in terms of the current legislation is not essential in the formation of the jury, and, as a consequence, cannot be used as a reason to cancel the acquittal.
Taking into consideration a possible biased attitude to the law enforcement authorities by a juror due to conviction of his close relatives, the practice of cassation of an acquitting on the considered base seems appropriate. In this case, in order to avoid gaps in the legislation of the jury trial, it is necessary to amend the subclause 2) of clause 1 of Article 10 of the Law
"On Jurors", and to present it as follows:
"2) having outstanding conviction or conviction that is not expunged, as well as close relatives having outstanding conviction or conviction that is not expunged;"
Upon that, it is essential to bring all related provisions contained herein and in the Criminal Procedure Code in line with the new amendment. Persons belonging to close relatives are stated in sub-clause 13) of clause of Article 1 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Marriage (Matrimony) and Family." Thus, firstly, there will be excluded the factor of possible bias of a juror towards prosecution, and, secondly, there will be eliminated the practice of cassation of an acquitting on the considered grounds, because the fact on convictions of close relatives will be determined early at the stage of jury selection. In its turn, this will deprive the public prosecution the possibility of invoking illegality of judgment on such a base with the aim to cancel an unfavorable decision of the jury trial.
Besides, there is a need to amend Chapter 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Due to the fact that the jurors are the persons, together with the judge directly administering justice, it is essential to consider the question on inclusion in Chapter 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code a new article "The Juror". In this article, by analogy with the other parties of the criminal proceedings, it is necessary to enshrine the legal status of a juror, his role, as well as principles of his activity in the course of administration of justice. It should be noted that this measure would ensure the unity of the statutory concept of Chapter 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code as well as enhance the status of a juror in the framework of criminal proceedings.
Quite controversial is the position about the inadmissibility of posing questions to the jury, which require them legal assessment of the crime committed by defendant, criminal qualification of his actions. It is worth noting that jurors often do not have specialized legal knowledge, and as a result in the decision they are guided by conscience and inner conviction. We suppose that in the conditions of Kazakhstan's mixed model of the jury trial, when the professional judge is with the jury when decision-making, to draw a clear line between the categories of the discussed facts is very difficult. We consider just fear of some experts that under the mixed board, the presiding judge in chambers may inadvertently or deliberately put pressure on jurors.
In accordance with clause 2 of Article 654 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic
of Kazakhstan among the three main questions (Is it proved that the act took place? Is it proved that this act is committed by the defendant? Is the defendant guilty of committing the act?) the judge may ask the jury specific questions about circumstances that increase or decrease the degree of guilt or change its nature, entail the release of the defendant from liability. To fill gaps in the jurors' legal knowledge, the Criminal Procedure Code gives the judge the right to give explanations on ambiguities arising in connection with the raised issues (clause 2 of Article 656). In our view, it is at this stage that the judge may fracture the fine line between explaining the law and putting pressure. In this regard, we assume it necessary to include in Article 656 of the Criminal Procedure Code a clause that contains a direct prohibition to the judge to discuss the evidence or to express his own opinion on the issues raised; and present this clause as follows:
"2-1. The judge may not give a legal assessment to evidence provided by the prosecution and defense, as well as express his own opinion when giving explanations to the jury on questions raised."
In this way, statutory will be excluded the
possibility of the judge to influence the jury with the aim to form their prejudices, thereby ensuring the impartiality of the jury.
Summing up the analysis of the legislation on the jury trial and its practical application, we note that there are a variety of problematic issues that require a systematic approach in order to solve them. At the same time, the need to improve this institution in terms of changes in specific procedures may in the long term raise the question on the transition from the mixed to the classical model of the jury trial, as is already customary in many countries worldwide successfully applying this institution.
Thus, further improvement of the institution of the trial by jury will allow Kazakhstan to achieve the following positive results:
1) the growth of confidence of citizens in the judicial system as a whole;
2) strengthening of public control over the observance of the rights and freedoms of the individual in criminal proceedings;
3) improvement of the quality of pretrial investigation, the prosecutor's supervision and qualified legal aid;
4) development of legal awareness and legal literacy of the population, and others.
References
1. Tocqueville Alexis de. Democracy in America: Historical-Critical Edition of De la démocratie en Amérique, ed. Eduardo Nolla. - Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2010. - 1574 p.;
2. «Nation Plan - 100 concrete steps» program of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan N. A. Nazarbayev dated May 20, 2015//Internet-source: http://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/ K1500000100;
3. Ковалев Н.П. Реформы судопроизводства с участием присяжных заседателей в Казахстане в последние десять лет. - Сборник докладов ежегодных консультаций Центра исследования правовой политики по вопросам уголовного правосудия, Астана. - 2016г. - 61 стр. (Kovalev N.P. Reforms of trial with the participation of jurors in Kazakhstan in the last ten years. - Collection of reports of annual consultations of the Legal Policy Research Centre on criminal justice, Astana. - 2016. - 61 p.).
4
> \>
V
