A judicial error in theory is seen as punishing an innocent for a violation that he did not commit. In some cases, this term means the justification of the subject for the deed.
Arbitrage practice
In most cases, there is the possibility of reviewing or annulment of an unlawful decision. However, putting this into practice is extremely difficult. The most serious cases are those where the incorrect conclusions underlying the decision were reversed after or before the person died in places of detention. Mistakes are possible in any activity of people. Their occurrence is associated with different circumstances. Judicial error is caused by the complexity of establishing a valid relationship of persons involved in the process, and the peculiarities of the application of certain norms. According to statistics, annually more than 2% of decisions are canceled at the appeal and about 3% at the supervisory authority. Thus, in more than five percent of the proceedings, judicial practice was unsuccessful. This figure includes tens of thousands of decisions made incorrectly. Each example of a miscarriage of justice indicates the illegality of the procedures carried out or indicates that proper measures were not taken at all. This, in turn, suggests that violated interests were not protected. Moreover, the authorized authorities themselves infringe on the rights of individuals by making incorrect decisions in court cases. All this, of course, negatively affects the trust of citizens, undermines the authority of officials.
Features of Decisions
The number of erroneous decisions made by the courts does not decrease from year to year. However, statistics show that their number does not increase. Thus, a stable trend remains. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the statistics do not reflect all cases where the trial of the court ended with the issuance of an unlawful decision. In the official data there are only those acts that have been canceled by higher authorities. Meanwhile, illegality is present in various orders. So, for example, a mistake may be made in a court order, determination, including the supervisory authority.
Key features
What is a miscarriage of justice? This category is characterized by certain features. In particular:
- It acts as a violation of established norms and indicates a deviation from the target settings of the proceedings.
- It is authorized by authorized bodies and officials. Judicial error arises only when considering a case or reviewing a decision.
- All violations can be remedied by legal means.
Procedural law
There is no definition of judicial error in the Code of Criminal Procedure and Code of Civil Procedure. However, the procedural law:
- Formulates its essential features.
- Defines the rules for its detection.
- Prescribes mandatory judicial error correction.
- Regulates the consequences of the admission of procedural violations.
Classification
A miscarriage of justice may constitute a violation that not only prevents the timely or rapid issuance of a decision, but also the correct study of the materials and the formulation of the correct conclusion. Recent cases cover concepts such as illegality and groundlessness. The first, in turn, acts as the result of the incorrect application or use of the inappropriate norms of procedural or substantive law. Judicial error may be insignificant (formal) or substantial. There is also a division of violations into:
- Revealed.
- Latent (hidden).
The latter do not imply changes or cancellation of the decision. However, latent violations have a negative impact on the authority of authorized authorities and on the resolution of court cases.
Causes of occurrence
Violations are numerous and varied, but any miscarriage of justice is related to the identity of the authorized person. The main reasons for their occurrence include:
- Lack of professionalism.
- Unfair, negligent, and in some cases a criminal attitude to his work.
The conditions under which violations occur are quite diverse. Many court cases are quite complex, multi-volume, with a large number of entities. Such processes often drag on for several years. In addition, the degree of workload of judges, the state of the regulatory framework, the conditions in which professional activities are carried out are of importance.
Possible solutions to situations
Correction of judicial errors, as well as the prevention of violations in the future, can be achieved in different ways. According to experts, one of the main ones is advanced training of authorized persons. It is necessary to develop a sense of responsibility for the assigned court cases, to improve existing legislation. In addition, to date, the rules provide for special procedural means with which you can eliminate certain violations. In particular, the correction of judicial errors made in the first instance is within the competence of appeal and supervisory authorities. Nevertheless, statistics show that the efforts of these institutions are extremely insufficient. For the most complete and effective control over the lawfulness of the issued decisions, the first instance must also be connected to the process. The victim of a miscarriage of justice must be able to contact a city or district authority. Elimination of violations at the level of the first instance will give efficiency to the whole process.
Litigation: Civil Cases
The admission of a violation during the process acts as a mismatch between the results of the activities of the authorized authority and the established goals of the entire system. The latter are fixed in the CCP. A mistake in a court decision is primarily a consequence of the activities of an official that is not consistent with the tasks assigned to him. Or the consequences of such work. When determining the purposefulness of the functioning of authorized bodies, special concepts are used. In particular, the term “task” is used. It should be understood as a quick and correct consideration of the case and adoption of an appropriate resolution on it. The specificity of the goals consists in their normative setting, the obligation to achieve, directivity directly to the authorized person. If the requirements of the legislation that formulated the relevant tasks are not fulfilled, responsibility arises.
Responsibilities
In order to achieve its goals, the court must:
- Every case is legal to study. This means the reliable and complete establishment of all the facts that are relevant to the process, the formulation of logically correct conclusions, the correct application of the relevant norms.
- Consider each case in the optimal time frame. This is necessary to ensure timely protection of disputed or violated interests of citizens and organizations.
The last task will be implemented if:
- Quick and proper preparation for the trial to resolve the case in the first meeting.
- The issuance of a reasoned decision convincing interested parties of its legitimacy. This, in turn, will speed up the process of bringing the decision into effect.
- Timely initiation of enforcement proceedings, taking appropriate measures to quickly and effectively restore violated interests.
Compliance Value
The goals and objectives of legal proceedings are a certain model. It stipulates the use of a complex of legal means; they orient all participants in the process towards achieving the optimal result. The goals and objectives, among other things, formulate requirements directly to the activities of authorized authorities and decisions adopted by it. A mistake in a court decision appears as a consequence of failure to comply with established standards. It entails legal consequences.
Objective wrongfulness
When characterizing a judicial error, the methods of committing the violation and the motivation of the authorized person do not matter. She will always be objectively wrongful. This is due to the fact that it is always a result that does not comply with legal norms that infringe on the subjective rights of any party to the process, that does not correspond to the duties assigned to authorized persons.
Subjects
Mistakes in the court session may be made by different participants in the process. In some cases, individuals may violate rules of conduct or other established standards. However, such actions have a different legal characteristic and have different consequences. As a rule, they concern only the subject himself, who commits them. Any example of a miscarriage of justice (misuse of the norm, use of the wrong norm, incomplete study of materials, ignoring of material circumstances, etc.) violates the law, goals and objectives of the proceedings. Such actions may have negative consequences for all participants in the process. However, first of all, they violate the interests of another person.
Legal characteristics of the remedy
It is determined by the content of the miscarriage of justice. Typically, violations of this kind do not entail procedural liability and are eliminated by legal remedies. For example, the elimination of errors is carried out by canceling the relevant resolution, restoring infringed interest, and so on. These measures are aimed at organizing a sound and legitimate study of materials.
Important point
The concept of “miscarriage of justice” is interpreted in a slightly different sense than the term “basis for amendment / cancellation” of the decision. The first definition covers all violations that are committed in the process. Any actions that are not consistent with the procedural requirements are erroneous. This characteristic is not affected by the way to eliminate them. The essence of the error is to indicate the incorrectness of the action or act of the court. It does not depend on the consequences that arise after them. In addition, the shortcomings and omissions, which are authorized to be eliminated by the courts that allowed them, act as varieties of illegality of decisions. If they are not eliminated in a timely manner, they will acquire signs of grounds for canceling or amending decisions.
Prevention of Violations
It corresponds to the conditions and reasons for their implementation. Error correction is related to the effect on the investigation. A warning may occur when the violation has not yet been committed by the subject. In other words, it is no longer possible to prevent a mistake. Moreover, work to eliminate violations is possible only after they are actually committed. Practical correction of errors is permissible immediately and only after their official (legal) recognition in the established procedural order.
Control functions
Today in the system of instances of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts there are appeal and supervisory instruments. Control functions are assigned to all links in the system. This is due to the fact that any activity needs an audit. Control in this case acts as a means of achieving excellence in the field. The supervisory authority in civil, criminal and arbitration proceedings acts as a specific function of the court. It is focused on verifying the legality of decisions of lower bodies that have entered into force, eliminating the shortcomings made in them. On this basis, judicial practice is supervised.
Role of first instance
In order to ensure timely, efficient and comprehensive achievement of the set goals and solving the set tasks, in addition to the ongoing activities of the appellate and supervisory authorities, according to many experts, it is necessary to include city and district courts in the system for eliminating errors. This point of view is argued by several arguments. First of all, the first instances in the process of exercising control over their own work have great potential in terms of prompt elimination of violations. Timeliness and speed of ensuring the correct resolution of court cases, in turn, acts as one of the most important tasks of legal proceedings. Activities of this nature carry a special legal and social value.
Basic principles
To ensure the proper performance of its functions, the court must:
- Carry out all activities prescribed by law.
- Commit procedural acts, strictly observing the conditions of their lawfulness, given in the hypotheses of norms.
- Perform actions sequentially. Obvious miscarriages of justice arise when the court has scheduled a hearing without preparing a case.
- Timely carry out procedural actions, take appropriate decisions. An authorized instance does not have the right to delay the adoption of a decision on the initiation of proceedings, the issuance of a reasoned decision, the drawing up of a minutes of the meeting, and so on.
- Fully and objectively document all actions taken. Erroneous are protocols in which the course of the whole process is not reflected.
Conclusion
Thus, judicial errors are distinguished by their diversity, but all of them are the result of illegal actions of authorized persons. Regardless of motivation, reasons, conditions for their fulfillment, they are all considered violations of established procedural rules. Often errors lead to irreparable consequences. This is especially true of criminal trials. Judicial errors - this is the legal consequence of the departure of the authorized authority from the established tasks and production goals. Moreover, such a deviation can be investigated in two planes - legal and actual. It must be noted that errors can occur both through the fault of the judge and without his participation. In this case, we are talking about other authorized employees of the instance. These, in particular, include the secretaries of meetings, the staff of the office. Inaccuracies and shortcomings made by them also have negative consequences. These mistakes, as well as those committed directly by the judges, appear as violations of procedural rules. Such actions also qualify as a departure from the established goals and objectives of production. In this regard, a number of authors point to the need to improve the system. In particular, in their opinion, it is necessary to increase the professionalism of the auxiliary apparatus in any instance. Theoretically, there are legal remedies for correcting judicial errors. However, in reality, the elimination of violations with their use often becomes very difficult. It is also associated with the imperfection of the appeals and supervisory systems. However, much depends on the subject whose rights have been violated. The law establishes certain deadlines in which a person can apply to higher authorities to eliminate certain errors.