Social and Legal Studios

Abstract

The provision claiming that all officials involved in judgement rendering collegial body, in returning an illegitimate judgement, that is aimed to harm, are accomplices has been criticized. After all, each bench member, without exception, is obliged to sign the judgement, in case of rendering it. This obligation is incumbent upon the dissenting judge/juror as well. Rendering by a bench member of his/her own (different from the rest) thought has an undeniable advantage: the possibility of avoiding criminal prosecution for rendering a deliberately illegitimate judgement. However, the situation in which the judge / juror, not agreeing with the position of the rest of the bench members, has signed the judgement, without rendering the dissenting opinion in writing for some reasons. At the same time, proving the fact of a deliberately illegitimate judgement rendering in criminal proceedings without the bench member’s dissenting opinion cannot automatically signify that the judge or the juror has committed the crime foreseen by Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. After all, the bench members can be examined as witnesses to the object of their advisement. Within such examination, the bench members may argue that, although they did not express their dissenting opinion in writing, they did not agree with the position of the others, they even tried to convince the majority of the unreasonableness and unlawfulness of their behavior. In general, having a positive attitude to the introduction of such a rule, the author cannot still ignore the negligence of the legislator in making an analyzed provision and its incorrect construction. That’s why a new introduction of Article 65, Part 2 of the CPC of Ukraine is suggested

Keywords: dissenting opinion, disagreement with a position of a majority

Suggested citation