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

The judicial error in the theory is considered 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 the possibility of reviewing or repealing an unlawful decision. 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 connected with different circumstances. Judicial error is also caused by the difficulty of establishing the actual relationships of the persons participating in the process and the specific features of the application of certain norms. According to the statistics, annually more than 2% of decisions are canceled in the appellate and about 3% in the supervisory instance. Thus, for more than five percent of the proceedings, judicial practice was unsuccessful. This figure includes tens of thousands of decisions passed in the wrong way. Each example of a miscarriage of justice indicates 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 cases when the trial of the case ended in an illegal decision. 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 the 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

In the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no definition of a judicial error. 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 constitute a violation, which not only hinders the timely or prompt issuance of a resolution, but also the correct study of materials and the formulation of a correct conclusion. Recent cases cover such concepts as illegality and unfoundedness. The first, in turn, appears as the result of incorrect application or use of an inappropriate standard of procedural or substantive law. The judicial error can be insignificant (formal) or substantial. 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

Violations are numerous and varied, but any judicial error is related to the identity 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 is the degree of congestion of judges, the state of the regulatory framework, the conditions in which professional activity is carried out.

Possible exits from situations

Correction of judicial errors, as well as prevention of violations in the future can be achieved in different ways. As one of the main, according to experts, is the improvement of 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 made, the first instance must be connected to the process. A victim of a miscarriage of justice must have the opportunity 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 admission of a violation in the course of the process acts as a discrepancy between the results of the activity of the authorized body and the established objectives of the entire system. The latter are fixed in the CCP. An error in a court decision is primarily a consequence of the activities of an official who does not agree with the tasks assigned to him. Or the consequences of such work. In determining the purposefulness of the functioning of authorized instances, special concepts are used. In particular, the term "task" is used. It should be understood as a quick and proper consideration of the case and adoption of an appropriate resolution on it. Specific objectives are their normative installation, the obligation of achievement, directivity directly to the authorized person. If the requirements of the legislation, which formulated the corresponding tasks, are not fulfilled, responsibility arises.

Duties

In order to achieve the set goals, the court must:

1. Every case is legitimate. This means a reliable and complete establishment of all the facts that are relevant to the process, the formulation of logically correct conclusions, the correct application of the relevant norms.
2. To consider each case in the optimal terms. This is necessary to ensure timely protection of the 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 trial to resolve the case in the first meeting.
2. Making a reasoned decision, convincing interested persons of its legitimacy. This, in turn, will accelerate the process of entry into action.
3. Timely initiation of enforcement proceedings, taking appropriate measures for the rapid and real restoration of violated interests.

Meaning of compliance

The goals and objectives of the judiciary are a specific model. It stipulates the use of a complex of legal means, orient all participants in the process to achieve the optimal result. Goals and objectives, among other things, formulate requirements directly to the activities of authorized bodies and decisions adopted by it. The error in the judgment appears as a consequence of the failure to comply with the established norms. It entails the relevant legal consequences.

Objective wrongfulness

When characterizing a judicial error, the methods of committing a violation, the motivation of an authorized person, do not matter. It will always be objectively unlawful. This is due to the fact that it is always a result that does not comply with legal norms that infringe on the subjective rights of any party to the process, not corresponding to the duties assigned to authorized persons.

Subjects

Errors in the court session can be made by different participants in the process. In some cases, persons may violate the rules of conduct or other established standards. However, such actions have a different legal characteristic and cause other consequences. As a rule, they concern only the subject who makes them. Any example of a judicial error (misuse of the norm, use of the wrong standard, incomplete study of materials, ignoring of essential circumstances, etc.) violates the law, the goals and tasks of production. Such actions can lead to negative consequences for all participants in the process. However, first of all they violate the interests of another person.

The legal characteristic of the method of elimination

It is determined by the content of the judicial error. Usually, violations of this kind do not entail procedural responsibility and are eliminated by legal protection measures. For example, the elimination of an error is carried out by canceling the relevant resolution, restoring the infringed interest, and so on. These measures are aimed at organizing a sound and lawful study of materials.

An Important Moment

The concept of "judicial error" is treated somewhat in a different sense than a term such as "the basis for changing / repealing" the resolution. The first definition covers all violations that are committed in the process. Any actions that do not comply with the procedural requirements are erroneous. This characteristic is not affected by the way they are eliminated. The essence of the error consists in indicating the incorrectness of the action or act of the court. It does not depend on the consequences that arise after them. In addition, shortcomings and omissions, which are authorized to abolish the courts that have allowed them, appear as a form of unlawfulness of rulings. If they are not liquidated in a timely manner, they will acquire signs of grounds for the cancellation or amendment of regulations.

Prevention of violations

It corresponds to the conditions and causes of their commission. Elimination of errors is connected with the effect on the investigation. A warning can 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, 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 established procedural order.

Control functions

Today, in the system of instances of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts, there are appellate and supervisory instruments. Control functions are assigned to 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 perfection in the sphere. Supervisory authority in civil, criminal and arbitration proceedings acts as a specific function of the court. It is aimed at verifying the legality of the decrees of the subordinate bodies that have entered into force, liquidating the shortcomings committed in them. On this basis, judicial practice is administered.

The role of the first instance

To ensure timely, efficient and comprehensive achievement of the established goals and accomplishments, in addition to the activities of the appellate and supervisory bodies, many experts believe that it is necessary to include urban and district courts in the error-correction system. This view is argued by several arguments. First of all, the first instances in the process of exercising control over their own work have great opportunities in terms of prompt elimination of the violations that have arisen. The timeliness and speed of ensuring the proper resolution of court cases, in turn, is one of the most important tasks of the judicial process. Activities of this nature carry a special legal and social value.

Basic principles

In order to ensure the proper discharge of its functions, the court must:

1. Carry out all the activities that are prescribed in the law.
2. Perform procedural acts, strictly observing the conditions of their legitimacy, given in the hypotheses of norms.
3. Perform actions sequentially. Obvious judicial errors arise when the court ordered a hearing without preparation of the case.
4. Timely to carry out procedural actions, to take appropriate decisions. The authorized body has no right to delay with the adoption of a decision to initiate proceedings, issue a reasoned decision, draw up a minutes of the meeting, and so on.
5. To fully and objectively document all the actions performed. Errors are the protocols in which the progress of the entire process is not reflected.

Conclusion

Thus, judicial errors differ in their diversity, but all of them are a consequence of illegal actions of authorized persons. Regardless of motivations, reasons, conditions of their commission, they are all considered violations of established procedural norms. Often mistakes lead to irreparable consequences. In particular, this applies to criminal trials. Judicial errors are a legal consequence of a derogation by the authorized body from the established tasks and production goals. In this case, such a deviation can be investigated in two planes - legal and factual. It should be noted that mistakes can arise both through the fault of the judge and without his participation. Speech in this case is about other authorized employees of the instance. Among them, in particular, should include the secretaries of meetings, employees of the Chancery. Inaccuracies and shortcomings, committed by them, also have negative consequences. These errors, like those committed directly by judges, act as violations of procedural norms. Such actions are also qualified as a departure from the established goals and objectives of production. In this regard, several authors point to 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 for correcting 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 supervisory systems. At the same time, much depends on the subject whose rights have been violated. The law establishes a certain time frame in which a person can apply to higher authorities for the elimination of certain errors.