Proportionality of Intervention and the Balance of Public and Private Interests in Covert Evidence Collection in Criminal Proceedings

Authors

  • Andrii Skrypnyk Poltava Law Institute of Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Ukraine http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4979-2152
  • Ivan Titko Національний юридичний університет імені Ярослава Мудрого, Ukraine

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21564/2225-6555.2024.2%20(26).313485

Keywords:

proportionality of interference, pre-trial investigation, covert investigative actions, crime provocation

Abstract

The article addresses problematic issues of proportionality of interference and the balance of public and private interests during covert evidence collection in criminal proceedings. The relevance of this topic is driven by the fact that, in the context of contemporary challenges related to security, digitalization, and globalization, covert investigative (search) actions should be considered indicators of adherence to the balance of public and private interests during criminal procedural activities. The aim of the article is to provide a scholarly understanding of ensuring proportionality of interference and balance of public and private interests in criminal proceedings during covert evidence collection. The following scientific methods were used to achieve this purpose and accomplish the related objectives: dialectical, formal-legal, formal-logical, analysis and synthesis, and inductive. The empirical basis of the research comprises the most relevant and significant positions of the cassation court concerning covert evidence collection, which are perceived as guidelines and, consequently, as indicators of trends in the national law enforcement system.

The authors examine the Supreme Court's positions on specific procedural issues related to interference with private communication, identifying a trend toward emphasizing public interest. Analyzing critical decisions of the cassation court on the appropriate limits of procedural confidentiality allows the authors to conclude that protecting the confidentiality (secrecy) of the technical component in covert investigative (search) actions, though justified for specialized technical means, cannot be considered proportionate concerning the carriers of obtained results. The procedural analysis of issues related to crime provocation highlights the cassation court's practice of using a comprehensive approach to consider the circumstances of covert operations and the diligence and fairness of the prosecution's procedural conduct within the adversarial court process, which is actively used to assess the presence or absence of elements indicating crime provocation. Based on the analyzed material, the study identifies procedurally significant trends and prospective directions for further research.

 

Keywords: proportionality of interference, pre-trial investigation, covert investigative actions, crime provocation

Author Biography

Ivan Titko, Національний юридичний університет імені Ярослава Мудрого

doctor of legal sciences, professor, head of the department of criminal law and criminal law disciplines Member of the All-Ukrainian public organization "Criminal Law Association", member of the Scientific Advisory Council at the Supreme Court, member of
the Coordination Bureau for Criminal Procedure Problems, Department of Criminal
and Legal Sciences of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, lawyer

References

Kaplina, O.V., & Tumanyants, A.R. et al. (2022). Standards for ensuring the legality of covert activities in criminal proceedings through the prism of European court of human rights. Pravoprimenenie-law enforcement review. 6(2). 2, 189–203.

Kaplina, O.V., & Tumanyants, A.R. et al. (2023). Standards for ensuring the legality of covert activities in criminal proceedings through the prism of European Court of Human Rights. Revista Juridica Portucalense. 34, 217–236.

Tumanyants, A.R. & Krytska, I.O. (2021). Standards for ensuring the legality of undercover activities in criminal proceedings through the lens of the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights. Problems of legality. 152, 111–123.

Panasiuk, O., & Grynko, A. et al. (2019). The right to private communication using telecommunication means: National and international legal aspects of protection. 7th International Interdisciplinary Scientific Conference SOCIETY. HEALTH. WELFARE (OCT 10-12, 2018): SHS Web of Conferences. Riga: Latvia, 68 01021, 9.

Babikov, O., & Bozhyk, V. et al. (2024). Balancing Interests: Criminal Proceedings & Private Life Interference Under Martial Law in Ukraine. German Law Journal, 1–25.

Koval, A. A. (2019). Ensuring Human Rights During Covert Investigative (Search) Actions. Mykolaiv: Petro Mohyla Black Sea National University Publishing, 2019, 264.

Hloviuk, I., & Zavtur, V. et al. (2024). Substantiating the legality of human rights restrictions in Ukraine in pre-trial investigation. Social & Legal Studios, 7(2), 130–139.

Razmetaeva, Yu., & Barabash Yu. et al. (2022). The Concept of Human Rights in the Digital Era: Changes and Consequences for Judicial Practice. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 44, 5 (3).

Kaplina, O., & Tumanyants, A. et al. (2023). Application of Artificial Intelligence Systems in Criminal Procedure: Key Areas, Basic Legal Principles and Problems of Correlation with Fundamental Human Rights. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 3 (20), 147–166.

Razmetaeva, Yu., & Razmetaev, S. (2021). Justice in the Digital Age: Technological Solutions, Hidden Threats and Enticing Opportunities. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 2(10), 104–117.

Zubrytska, M.V. (2020). Provocation of a crime in the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights and in the national judicial system. Almanac of Law, 11, 334–339. http://jnas.nbuv.gov.ua/article/UJRN-0001139071

Hura, O.P. (2023). Provocation of a crime in cases of illegal use of humanitarian aid (Article 201-2 of the Criminal Code): fiction or reality? Public Law, 2 (50), 75–84.

Berdnik, I.V., & Tahiiev, S.R. (2024). Provocation of a crime: an analysis of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court. Electronic scientific publication “Analytical and comparative jurisprudence”, 2, 649-654.

Resolution of the Criminal Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court dated May 9, 2023, case No. 554/5867/18. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/110807769

Resolution of the Criminal Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court dated April 9, 2020, case No. 727/6578/17. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/88749345

Decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Katz v. United States (1967) 389 U.S.347. Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/389/347/

Decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Carpenter v. United States (2018) 138 S.Ct.2206. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf

Case of Halford v. The United Kingdom (Application No. 20605/92): Judgement of European Court Human Rights, 25 June 1997. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/tur?i=001-58039

Case of Peev v. Bulgaria (Application No. 64209/01): Judgement of European Court Human Rights, 26 July 2007. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-81914

Case of Benedik v. Slovenia (Application No. 62357/14): Judgement of European Court Human Rights, 24 April 2018. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-182455

Zavtur, V. (2024). The doctrine of “reasonable expectation of privacy”: genesis, content and issues of implementation in the field of criminal proceedings. Legal Bulletin, 1. 102-112.

Resolution of the Criminal Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court dated April 9, 2024, case No. 369/4929/19. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/118465118#

Verdict of Kyiv-Svyatoshinskyi District Court of Kyiv Region dated August 2, 2022, case No. 369/4929/19. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/105534658

Resolution of the Criminal Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court of November 16, 2023, case No. 629/4665/15-k. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/115061801

Resolution of the Criminal Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court of January 26, 2022, case No. 677/450/18. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/102941414

Resolution of the Criminal Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court dated October 19, 2022, case No. 728/1614/17. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/106940482

Resolution of the Criminal Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court dated February 2, 2023, case No. 712/5194/20. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/108930806

Resolution of the Criminal Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court dated May 17, 2023, case No. 607/20877/19. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/111036691

Resolution of the Criminal Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court of November 21, 2023, case No. 991/722/21. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/115409309

Downloads

Published

2025-01-01

How to Cite

Skrypnyk, A., & Titko, I. (2025). Proportionality of Intervention and the Balance of Public and Private Interests in Covert Evidence Collection in Criminal Proceedings. Theory and Practice of Jurisprudence, (2 (26), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.21564/2225-6555.2024.2 (26).313485

Issue

Section

Articles