The formality of the lawyer's defense is the basis for the revocation of the sentence

A lack of proactive advocacy action may be the basis for reviewing the case.

This conclusion was reached by the panel of judges  of the Criminal Court of the Supreme court in the decision of June 13, 2019 in case No. 607/9498/16.

Due to the circumstances of this case, the local court, whose decision was later upheld by the Court of Appeal, ruled to convict the person under Part 1 of Art. 258-3 of the Criminal Code (creation of a terrorist organization) and Part 2 of Art. 258-5 of the Criminal Code (terrorist financing).

The defendant's new defense attorney appealed to the cassation appeal, requesting that the decisions of the previous court instances were quashed on the grounds that the investigating judge's decision to search the suspect was formally executed (the defendant did not even know about the existence of criminal proceedings).

Also, according to the defender's arguments, the presence at the meeting of the appointed defender Fedchyshyn was formal.

As a result of the review, the Supreme Court overturned the local court's ruling and the court of appeal and ordered a new trial in the local court.

As the Supreme Court explained, the correspondence of the case must be officially provided to the person in absentia about the criminal proceedings against him.

Moreover, according to court recordings, the appointed lawyer Fedchyshyn was only formally present at court hearings, did not make any statements or petitions aimed at protecting the person, did not declare the defendant's improper notification of the date and time of court hearings, and agreed with the claims of the prosecution party. Also, the defense counsel did not meet with the client during the pre-trial investigation and trial, did not agree with him on the line of defense against the prosecution, did not actually provide defense.

Thus, according to the Supreme court, the trial was incomplete, one-sided and biased, leading to a breach of the principle of competition. Therefore, in view of such a significant violation of the criminal procedural law and the right of a person to defense, the case must be a subject to a new trial.

Read 885 times