Presiding judge's remarks do not restrict defendant's right to defence – Supreme Court
Remarks made by a presiding judge during judicial debates to a defendant who repeatedly voiced the same points and quoted legal norms do not indicate a restriction of the right to defence, the Supreme Court emphasizes.
According to a report on the Court’s website, the Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court (CCC SC) reached this conclusion.
In the criminal proceedings under review, lower courts found the defendant guilty and sentenced him under Part 2 of Article 15, Part 1 of Article 152, and Part 4 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (attempted rape and robbery).
In the cassation appeal, the convict claimed that his time for speaking during judicial debates in the court of appeal was restricted.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and noted that a court does not have the right to limit the duration of judicial debates to a specific time.
"At the same time, the essence of judicial debates is not reduced solely to the speeches of the participants in the criminal proceedings… The presiding judge has the right to stop the speech of a participant in the debates if, after a remark, they repeatedly go beyond the scope of the ongoing criminal proceedings or repeatedly make statements of an insulting or obscene nature, and give the floor to another participant in the debates," the Court’s statement said.
The Supreme Court analyzed the video recording of the court session, during which the presiding judge of the panel of the court of appeal asked the defendant several times during his speech in the judicial debates not to quote legal norms and not to repeat points that had already been voiced.
"The panel of judges of the CCC SC concluded that the presiding judge’s remarks to the defendant during the judicial debates do not indicate any restriction of his rights, as such actions were aimed solely at fulfilling the requirements of Part 1 of Article 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, according to which the presiding judge directs the course of the court session… Ensuring the order of judicial debates in this manner in no way affected the realization of the defendant’s right to defence," the Court emphasized.
