Lack of Reason as a Basis for the Cancellation and Change of the Court Decision in the Cassation and Appeal Instances

The aim of this article is to show the inextricable link between such properties of court decisions as legality, validity and motivation. Reason as a property of the court decision by virtue of Part 4 of Article 7 of the RF Code of Criminal Procedure is connected with legality, validity and, accordingly, can be a subject of consideration not only in the court of appeal, but also in that of cassation. Examples are given when the court of cassation considers and cancels decisions of the court of first and appeal instances on the basis of their lack of reason. The study of judicial practice, of the subject and limits of the courts of cassation and appeal instances shows that when a court decision is not reasoned, there are significant differences in the actions and decisions of the appeal and cassation instances, which are predetermined by the subject and limits of these instances. A certain algorithm of actions for the court of appeal is proposed when it establishes a non-reasoned court decision. If, having studied the materials of the case, having examined the evidence, the court of appeal comes to the same conclusions as the court of the first instance, it leaves the decision of the court of the first instance unchanged and gives reason for the decision in its ruling. If a non-reasoned decision is also accompanied by other errors of the court of first instance (not all the evidence was investigated, the factual circumstances of the case were incorrectly established, they were given a wrong assessment, the norms of the law were violated in sentencing), the court of appeal cancels the decision of the first instance court, changes it or makes a new decision. Thus, in the court of cassation, a non-reasoned court decision is grounds for its canceling, sending the case for a new trial to the court of first or appeal instances. In the court of appeal, a non-reasoned court decision is grounds for its canceling, making a new decision on the case and for changing the sentence or leaving the sentence unchanged. Such a situation can lead to numerous low-quality decisions by judges of the first instance courts who can hope that the court of appeal will do the necessary work on the decision: finish reasoning, hearing, investigating it, while they have a heavy workload. The consideration of the case, the "filling in" of gaps and the elimination of errors made by the court of the first instance directly in the court of appeal will significantly shorten the time for consideration of criminal cases and will ultimately work on the effectiveness of criminal proceedings. These interests and values should guide the courts of appeal. At the same time, it is necessary to provide the court of appeal with an opportunity to make private rulings addressed to judges allowing non-reasoned decisions, even if the decision of the first instance judge remains unchanged.

Keywords

Authors

References