Полномочия прокурора и суда при избрании меры пресечения в судебном порядке

Ольга Геннадьевна Иванова

doi:10.21638/11701/spbu14.2017.207

Authors

Ольга Геннадьевна Иванова Department of the Criminal procedure and criminalistics, Siberian Federal University; pr. Svobodnyy, 79, Krasnoyarsk, 660041, Russia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu14.2017.207

Abstract

This article is written to analyse court and prosecutor’s powers in applying a custodial measure, to observe the introduction of specialized (investigative) judges, to look at the possibilities of procedural law improvement in the sphere of custodial measures. In the given article the prosecutor’s powers in court hearing while applying custodial measure were examined. This work voices the opinion that since the court has a juridical control function during a pre-trial investigation, this function must be institutionalized and a corps of investigating judges must be formed. It is being explained the suggestion to commute a sentence with a primary applying as “1 month detention”. The article was also arrives at a conclusion that the prosecutor’s task in applying a measure of restraint in juridical procedure is the supervisory action over the criminal procedural law while applying a measure of restraint; however a prosecutor’s attitude can be developed only during the court hearing after both sides’ arguments and elements of claims will be heard. A prosecutor, through his overriding concern in applying a measure of restraint, lies under the obligation to take part in the trial discussing this question but he is not bound by an investigator’s opinion and has a right, if eligible, not to support his application. A prosecutor does not provide a criminal prosecution function in pre-trial criminal procedure. Refs 8.

Keywords:

criminal prosecution, prosecutor, court, custodial measure, powers, commitment, house arrest, bail

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Литература

Практика применения Уголовно-процессуального кодекса Российской Федерации: практ. пособие: в 2 ч. / В. А. Давыдов, В. В. Дорошков, Н. А. К олоколов и др.; под ред. В. М . Л ебедева. 7-е изд., перераб. и доп. М.: Юрайт, 2016. Ч. 1. 231 с.

Ковтун Н.Н., Суслова Е.Н. Эффективность оперативного судебного контроля // Уголовное судопроизводство. 2010. № 3. С. 7–15.

Демидов И.Ф. Судебная реформа и новые проблемы науки уголовного процесса // Вопросы укрепления законности в уголовном судопроизводстве в свете правовой реформы: матер. конф. М.; Тюмень, 1995. С. 24–25.

Трубникова Т.В. Судебный контроль за законностью и обоснованностью применения заключения под стражу в современном уголовном судопроизводстве // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Серия «Экономика, юридические науки». 2003. № 4. С. 49–51.

Тришева А. Институт следственных судей — необходимое условие состязательности судопроизводства // Законность. 2009. № 7. С. 3–9.

Лебедев В.М. Судебная власть в современной России. СПб.: Лань, 2001. 133 с.

Смирнов А.В. Возрождение института следственных судей в российском уголовном процессе // РАПСИ. 2015. URL: http://rapsinews.ru/judicial_analyst/20150224/273218436.html (дата обращения: 01.04.2017).

Щерба С.П., Попова А.В. Дискреционные полномочия прокурора при применении меры пресечения в виде заключения под стражу // Законность. 2016. № 1. С. 22–26.

References

Praktika primeneniia Ugolovno-protsessual’nogo kodeksa Rossiiskoi Federatsii: prakt. posobie: v 2 ch. [Practice in the application of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation: practical guide: in 2 parts]. V.A. Davydov, V.V. Doroshkov, N.A. Kolokolov and others; ed. by V.M. Lebedev, 7th ed., updated and revised. Moscow, Iurait Publ., 2016, part 1, 231 р.(In Russian)

Kovtun N.N., Suslova E.N. Effektivnost’ operativnogo sudebnogo kontrolia [The effectiveness of operative juridical control]. Ugolovnoe sudoproizvodstvo [Criminal proceeding], 2010, no. 3, pp. 7–15. (In Russian)

Demidov I.F. [Juridical reform and new problems of the criminal process’ science]. Voprosy ukrepleniia zakonnosti v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve v svete pravovoi reformy: mater. konf. [Questions of consolidation of legality in criminal proceeding in relation to the legal reform: conference materials]. Moscow, Tumen’, 1995, рp. 24–25.(In Russian)

Trubnikova T.V. Sudebnyi kontrol’ za zakonnost’iu i obosnovannost’iu primeneniia zakliucheniia pod strazhu v sovremennom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Juridical control over the legality and justification of applying detentions in contemporary criminal proceeding]. Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Series “Economics, legal sciences”, 2003, no. 4, pp. 49–51.(In Russian)

Trisheva A. Institut sledstvennykh sudei — neobkhodimoe uslovie sostiazatel’nosti sudoproizvodstva[Investigating judges institution — the prerequisite of proceedings adversarial]. Zakonnost’ [Legality], 2009, no. 7, pp. 3–9.(In Russian)

Lebedev V.M. Sudebnaia vlast’ v sovremennoi Rossii [Juridical power in Russia nowadays]. St. Petersburg, Lan’ Publ., 2001. 133 р.(In Russian)

Smirnov A.V. Vozrozhdenie instituta sledstvennykh sudei v rossiiskom ugolovnom protsesse [Reappearance of the investigating judges institution in Russian criminal process]. RAPSI (Russian Agency for Legal and Judicial Information), 2015. Available at: http://rapsinews.ru/judicial_analyst/20150224/273218436.html (accessed: 01.04.2017).(In Russian)

Scherba S.P., Popova A.V. Diskretsionnye polnomochiia prokurora pri primenenii mery presecheniia v vide zakliucheniia pod strazhu [Prosecutor’s discretional powers in applying the remand in custody]. Zakonnost’ [Legality], 2016, no. 1, pp. 22–26.(In Russian)