Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/93434
Type of publication: Magistro darbas / Master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė (S001) / Law
Author(s): Čapas, Lukas
Title: Ar privataus eksperto atliktos konsultacinės išvados vertinimas kaip įrodymo, turinčio mažesnę įrodomąją galią negu teismo eksperto ar specialisto atliktų išvadų, atitinka rungimosi principą?
Other Title: Does the evaluation of a consultative report, prepared by a private expert as evidence of a lesser probative value than reports, which are prepared by forensic experts or specialists, comply with the adversarial principle?
Extent: 41 p.
Date: 5-Jun-2019
Keywords: Privatus ekspertas;Private expert;Konsultacinė išvada;Consultative report;Rungimosi principas;Adversarial principle;Baudžiamasis procesas;Criminal procedure;Specialiųjų žinių taikymas;Usage of special knowledge
Abstract: Remiantis 1923 metų Rusijos Federacijos baudžiamojo proceso kodeksu, galiojusiu Lietuvos Respublikoje iki 1961 metų bei 1967 metų Lietuvos Tarybų Socialistinės Respublikos baudžiamojo proceso kodeksu, įtvirtinamos dvi procesinės figūros – ekspertas bei specialistas, taikantys specialiąsias žinias tiriant nusikalstamas veikas. Šių asmenų dalyvavimas baudžiamajame procese vieningai įtvirtinamas 2003 m. gegužės 1 d. įsigaliojusiu Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo proceso kodeksu, tačiau Lietuvos Respublikos teismo ekspertizės įstatymu numatomas dar vienas subjektas, užtikrinantis pastarųjų žinių įgyvendinimą – privatus ekspertas bei proceso dalyvių prašymu teikiama konsultacinė išvada. Atsiradus naujai procesinei figūrai situacija pasikeitė – tuo atveju, kai valstybės pareigūnai bei institucijos atmeta proceso šalių prašymą skirti specialių žinių reikalaujantį tyrimą, pastarosioms suteikiama papildoma galimybė apginti savo interesus – kreiptis į privačius ekspertus ir gauti specialiosiomis žiniomis grįstą konsultacinę išvadą. Tad Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamajame procese, panaudojant specialiąsias žinias, dalyvauja trys subjektai – ekspertas, specialistas bei privatus ekspertas. Šiame darbe analizuojama ar Lietuvos teisinėje sistemoje šalims pasitelkus privatų ekspertą bei jo atliekamus tyrimus praktikoje nėra pažeidžiamas rungimosi principas, t. y. lygios šalių teisės varžytis procese ginant savo interesus. Darbe peržvelgiama rungimosi principo samprata bei reikšmė skirtingose baudžiamojo proceso formose, taip pat aptariamas įrodymų institutas, lyginami atskiri jo etapai užsienio šalių atžvilgiu. Nagrinėjama specialiųjų žinių samprata bei svarba baudžiamajam procesui, išskiriami subjektai, teikiantys pastarųjų žinių reikalaujančius tyrimus bei atitinkamai yra palyginami teisių, pareigų, atsakomybės, vykdomos veiklos atžvilgiu. Taip pat, lyginant su Lietuva, peržvelgiamas privataus eksperto atliktų tyrimų reglamentavimas Rusijoje bei Jungtinėse Amerikos Valstijose, pabrėžiant panašumus bei skirtumus, atliekamų tyrimų svarbą skirtingose teisės tradicijose. Ypatinga reikšmė skiriama privataus eksperto atliktos konsultacinės išvados vertinimui Lietuvos teisinėje sistemoje, pabrėžiant diskriminacinius pagrindus, kurie atsispindi teismų praktikoje, įstatymų normose, teisės doktrinoje. Baigiamojo magistro darbo pabaigoje pateikiamos tyrimo rezultatus atitinkančios išvados, iš kurių svarbiausia - privataus eksperto atliktos konsultacinės išvados vertinimas kaip įrodymo, turinčio mažesnę įrodomąją galią negu teismo eksperto ar specialisto atliktų išvadų, pažeidžia rungimosi principą.
The 1923 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, which was valid in the Republic of Lithuania until 1961 and 1967 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic established two types of subjects – experts and specialists, who applies special knowledge in criminal investigations. Participation of these persons in criminal proceedings was unitedly consolidated by the 1 May 2003 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania, moreover, Republic of Lithuania Law on the Forensic Expertise includes another subject that provides criminal proceedings with non-routine, non-judicial knowledge – private expert, who issues a consultative report at the request of the parties. The inclusion of this subject basically changed the situation – parties have additional right to protect their interests by contacting private expert to get certain research based on special knowledge, if pre-trial investigators, prosecutors and judges rejects parties request for report, issued by forensic expert or specialist. As a result, there are three subjects involved in criminal proceedings with necessary special knowledge – expert, specialist and private expert. Therefore, the question arises: What relationship exist between these three subjects? Are they equal in a matter of rights, duties and legal responsibility? Are the conclusions, drawn by the private expert, in the Lithuanian judicial practice are assessed by the same criteria that are applied to reports issued by the forensic experts and specialists? The aim of this study is to analyze whether parties right to use private expert and his research in Lithuanian legal system practice are not violated by the adversarial principle. The theoretical part of this study covers the conception of adversarial principle and its significance in different forms of criminal proceedings, moreover, the institute of evidence is discussed comparing its separate stages with foreign countries. Special significance is given to the transformation of factual data into evidence in the case and to the comparison with the regulations in foreign countries, such as Germany, United States of America and England, emphasizing similarities and differences. In addition, this part presents the concept of special knowledge and its importance of the criminal proceedings, the subjects that provide research requiring special knowledge are distinguished and, accordingly, are comparable in terms of rights, duties, responsibilities and activities performed. The research paper of this study reviews the regulation of report, issued by a private expert in Russia (the state of continental law tradition) and the United States of America (a common law tradition state), emphasizing the importance of report in different legal traditions, highlighting similarities and differences compared to Lithuania. The study affirms that in Lithuania, a private expert conducts inquiries on the basis of a court or judge’s assignment, that are equated to the conclusions drawn by experts and specialists, while at the initiative of the parties, a similar research by a private expert will be equated with a consultative report, which is not equivalent to expertise or the conclusions, drawn by the specialist. A clearer situation is reflected in Russian law, where an extrajudicial expert inquiry is recognized as evidence in accordance with the law, or in the United States of America judicial practice, where the report of a private expert selected by the parties is equivalent to the report, issued by the forensic expert and is also recognized as evidence in the case. The court pays far less attention to the formal criteria, such as the person’s education or experience but draws attention to the person’s special knowledge which will assist the subjects (pre-trail investigation officers, prosecutors, judges) in proving the circumstances of the case, forming the completeness of the criminal investigation and the reasonableness of the courts findings. Meanwhile, different situation is stated in the Lithuanian judicial practice where the court, having assessed the consultative report drawn by a private expert did not follow it and rejected not only because it was of a consultative nature but also took into account the workplace of the person – it is important whether a person works in a state expert institution or privately, whether a private expert is included in the list of court experts, as well as the qualification and work experience of the person as an additional criteria. Furthermore, when examining the legal position of a private expert in the Lithuanian legal system it is clear, that there are some discriminatory aspects related to his legal status and activities. These grounds are reflected in the case-law, where some courts reject and do not investigate the consultative report without giving reasons, others add to the material of the case as a written evidence; in laws where the legislator obviously creates preconditions for ambiguous statements (Republic of Lithuania Law on the Forensic Expertise); in the legal doctrine where law scientists repeatedly emphasizes the priority of expertise and conclusions, drawn by the specialist compared to the consultative report.
Internet: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/93434
Affiliation(s): Teisės fakultetas
Appears in Collections:2019 m. (TF mag.)

Files in This Item:
lukas_capas_md.pdf927.43 kBAdobe PDF   Until 2024-06-05View/Open

Show full item record

Page view(s)

96
checked on Nov 5, 2019

Download(s)

30
checked on Nov 5, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.