What is a miscarriage of justice? Judicial error in criminal proceedings. Correction of judicial errors

The judicial error in the theory is regarded as punishment of the innocent for a violation that he did not commit. In some cases, this term means the justification of the subject for the deed.

Arbitrage practice

In most cases, there is a possibilityrevision or cancellation of the wrongful order. However, it is extremely difficult to implement this in practice. The most serious cases are those when the wrong conclusions, which are the basis of the decision, were abolished after or before the person died in detention facilities. Errors are possible in any activity of people. Their occurrence is due to various circumstances. Judicial error is also caused by the difficulty in establishing the actual relationships between the persons involved in the process and the specifics of the application of certain norms. According to the statistics, more than 2% of the decisions are annulled annually in the appellate court and about 3% in the supervisory instance. Thus, for more than five percent of the proceedings, the judicial practice was unsuccessful. This figure includes tens of thousands of decisions passed in the wrong way. Each example of a miscarriage of justice points to the illegitimacy of the procedures carried out, or indicates that proper measures have not been implemented at all. This, in turn, indicates that the violated interests were not protected. Moreover, the authorized bodies themselves infringe on the rights of individuals, making wrong decisions in court cases. All this, undoubtedly, negatively affects the trust of citizens, undermines the authority of officials.

Features of decisions

The number of erroneous decisions made by the courts,does not decrease from year to year. However, as statistics show, their number does not increase. Thus, there is a stable trend. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the statistics do not reflect all the cases when the trial of the case ended in the issuance of an undue order. In official data, only those acts that have been abolished by higher authorities are present. Meanwhile, unlawfulness is present in various kinds of decisions. For example, an error may be allowed in a court order, determination, including a supervisory authority.

Main features

What is a miscarriage of justice? For this category, certain features are characteristic. In particular:

1. It acts as a violation of established norms and indicates a deviation from the objectives of the court.
2. It is authorized by authorized bodies and officials. A judicial error arises only when the case is being reviewed or the resolution is reviewed.
3. All violations can be eliminated by legal means.

Procedural law

There is no definition of a judicial error in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Code of Civil Procedure. However, procedural legislation:

1. Formulates its essential features.
2. Defines the rules for its detection.
3. Prescribes mandatory correction of errors in court.
4. Regulates the consequences of admitting procedural violations.

Classification

A judicial error can be aviolation, which not only hinders the timely or prompt issuance of the order, but also the correct study of materials and the formulation of a correct conclusion. The latter cases cover such concepts as illegality and unfoundedness. The first, in turn, is the result of incorrect application or use of an improper rule of procedural or substantive law. The judicial error can be insignificant (formal) or significant. There is also a division of violations into:

• Identified.
• Latent (hidden).

The latter do not imply a change or cancellation of the order. However, latent violations have a negative impact on the authority of authorized bodies and on the resolution of court cases.

Causes

Infringements are numerous and various, but any judicial error is connected with the person of the authorized person. The main reasons for their occurrence include:

• Insufficient professionalism.
• Unfair, careless, and in some cases criminal attitude towards their work.

The conditions under which violations occur,are quite diverse. Many court cases are quite complex, multivolume, with a large number of subjects. Such processes are often delayed for several years. In addition, the importance of the degree of congestion of judges, the state of the regulatory framework, the conditions in which professional activities are carried out.

Possible exits from situations

Correction of judicial errors, as well asprevention of violations in the future can be achieved in different ways. As one of the main, in the opinion of specialists, is the improvement of the qualifications of authorized persons. It is necessary to develop a sense of responsibility for the assigned cases, to improve the existing legislation. In addition, to date, the norms provide for special procedural means, with the help of which it is possible to liquidate certain violations. In particular, the correction of judicial errors admitted in the first instance falls within the competence of the appellate and supervisory bodies. Nevertheless, as statistics show, the efforts of these institutions are extremely inadequate. For the most complete and effective control over the legality of the decisions to be issued to the process, it is necessary to connect the first instance. The victim of a miscarriage of justice must be able to apply to the city or district authority. Elimination of violations at the first instance level will give speed to the entire process.

Judicial practice: civil cases

The violation is committed during the processas a discrepancy between the results of the activities of the authorized institution and the established goals of the entire system. The latter are fixed in the GIC. A mistake in a court decision is primarily a result of the activity of an official who does not agree with the tasks set for him. Or the consequences of such work. When determining the purposefulness of the functioning of authorized instances, special concepts are used. In particular, the term “task” is used. Under it should be understood a quick and proper consideration of the case and the adoption of an appropriate decision on it. The specificity of the goals is in their normative setting, the obligation to achieve, and the focus directly on the authorized person. In case of non-compliance with the requirements of the legislation that has formulated the relevant tasks, responsibility comes.

Duties

To achieve its goals, the court must:

1. Each case is legal to study. This means a reliable and complete establishment of all the facts that are relevant to the process, the formulation of logical conclusions, the correct application of the relevant rules.
2. Consider each case in the optimum time. This is necessary to ensure the timely protection of disputed or violated interests of citizens and organizations.

The last task will be implemented in the case of:

1. Quick and proper preparation for the proceedings to resolve the case at the first meeting.
2. Making a motivated ruling convincing interested parties of its legality. This, in turn, will speed up the decision-making process.
3. Timely initiation of enforcement proceedings, taking appropriate measures for quick and real restoration of violated interests.

The value of compliance

The objectives and tasks of legal proceedings arespecific model. It stipulates the use of a complex of legal means, orienting all participants in the process towards achieving an optimal result. Goals and objectives, among other things, formulate requirements directly to the activities of the authorized instances and resolutions adopted by it. An error in the court decision acts as a consequence of non-compliance with the established norms. It has corresponding legal consequences.

Objective wrongfulness

When characterizing a judicial error do not havevalues ​​of the method of committing the violation, the motivation of the authorized person. She will always be objectively wrongful. This is due to the fact that it is always a result that does not comply with legal norms, infringe upon the subjective rights of any party to the process, and does not correspond to the duties imposed on authorized persons.

Subjects

Mistakes in the court hearing may allowdifferent participants in the process. In some cases, individuals may violate the rules of conduct or other established norms. However, such actions have a different legal characteristic and cause other consequences. As a rule, they relate only to the subject who performs them. Any example of a judicial error (incorrect use of a norm, use of a wrong norm, incomplete study of materials, ignoring essential circumstances, etc.) violates the law, goals and objectives of production. Such actions may entail negative consequences for all participants in the process. However, first of all they violate the interests of another person.

Legal characteristics of the method of elimination

It is determined by the content of the judicial error. Violations of this kind usually do not entail procedural responsibility and are remedied by legal remedies. For example, the elimination of an error is carried out by canceling the corresponding decree, restoring the disadvantaged interest and so on. These measures are focused on the organization of reasonable and lawful study of materials.

Important point

The concept of "judicial error" is interpreted somewhat inin a different sense than the term “basis for amending / repealing” an order. The first definition covers all violations that are committed in the process. Any action inconsistent with the procedural requirements is erroneous. This characteristic is not affected by the way to eliminate them. The essence of the error is to indicate the wrong action or act of the court. It does not depend on the consequences that arise after them. In addition, the shortcomings and omissions that are authorized to eliminate the courts that have allowed them, act as a variety of illegitimate decisions. If they are not eliminated in a timely manner, they will acquire signs of grounds for cancellation or change of regulations.

Prevention of violations

It corresponds to the conditions and causes of them.committing. Elimination of errors is associated with the effect on the effect. A warning may occur if the violation has not yet been committed by the subject. In other words, it is no longer possible to prevent an error. Moreover, the work on the elimination of violations is possible only after they are actually committed. Practical correction of errors is permissible immediately and only after their official (legal) recognition in the prescribed procedural order.

Control functions

Today in the system of instances of general jurisdiction andarbitration courts there are appeal and supervisory tools. Control functions are vested in all parts of the system. This is due to the fact that any activity needs to be audited. Control in this case acts as a means of achieving excellence in the field. The supervisory authority in civil, criminal and arbitration proceedings acts as a specific function of the court. It is focused on verifying the legality of the decisions of lower-level bodies that have entered into force and the elimination of the shortcomings allowed in them. On this basis, the management of judicial practice.

Role of first instance

To ensure timely, effective andAccording to many experts, it is necessary to include the city and regional courts in the system of eliminating errors in the overall achievement of the established goals and the solution of the tasks set, in addition to the ongoing activities of the appellate and supervisory bodies. This point of view is argued by several arguments. First of all, the first instances in the process of exercising control over their own work have great potential in terms of promptly eliminating the violations that have occurred. The timeliness and speed of ensuring the proper resolution of court cases, in turn, serves as one of the most important tasks of legal proceedings. An activity of this nature carries with it a special legal and social value.

Basic principles

To ensure the proper execution of its functions, the court must:

1. To carry out all activities that are prescribed by law.
2. Perform procedural acts, strictly observing the conditions of their legality, given in the hypotheses of the rules.
3. Perform actions consistently. Obvious judicial errors arise in cases where the court has appointed a hearing without preparing the case.
4. Timely carry out the proceduralaction, take appropriate decisions. The authorized body does not have the right to delay the decision to initiate proceedings, to make a reasoned decision, to draw up a meeting protocol, and so on.
5. To fully and objectively document all actions performed. Erroneous are the protocols that do not reflect the progress of the whole process.

Conclusion

Thus, judicial errors differ in theirdiversity, but they are all due to the wrongful actions of authorized persons. Regardless of the motivations, the reasons, the conditions for their commission, they are all considered violations of the established procedural rules. Often mistakes lead to irreparable consequences. This is especially true of criminal proceedings. Judicial errors are a legal consequence of the deviation by the authorized body from the established tasks and objectives of the proceedings. In this case, such a deviation can be investigated in two planes - legal and actual. It is necessary to take into account that mistakes can arise both through the fault of the judge and without his participation. In this case we are talking about other authorized employees of the instance. To them, in particular, should include secretaries of meetings, office staff. Inaccuracies and shortcomings made by them also have negative consequences. These mistakes, as well as those committed directly by the judges, act as violations of the procedural rules. Such actions are also qualified as a departure from the established goals and objectives of production. In this regard, a number of authors point out the need to improve the system. In particular, in their opinion, it is necessary to improve the professionalism of the auxiliary apparatus in any instance. Theoretically, there are legal means to correct judicial errors. However, in reality, the elimination of violations with their use often becomes very difficult. This is also due to the imperfection of the appellate and oversight systems. At the same time, much depends on the subject whose rights have been violated. The law establishes certain terms in which a person may apply to higher authorities for the elimination of certain errors.