Russia’s Supreme court explained in detail, what and how to punish people in robes. Details – published in the review of jurisprudence of the disciplinary Board of the Supreme court.
Judge M. from Volgograd, having heard the last word of the defendant, withdrew for a few days in the jury room. According to the law this time, the judge has to devote to meditation in solitude. Of course, in the evening he can take breaks for lunch and in the evening to go home, but in General the judge must be in the room and be closed off from the world. While the officially listed judge departed to the deliberation room, he cannot carry out other processes.
But for some reason the judge from Volgograd decided that the days of “deliberation room” – a time of relaxation. The next day she did not come to work. And 16 hours being a little tipsy, gave his jeep a car accident, which injured five cars.
This behavior was incompatible with the high title of a judge, that is the principled position of the Disciplinary Board. Judge M. is no longer a judge.
a judge from the Rostov region, also de jure, while in the deliberation room, took the train to another region. However, he did not keep his mouth shut about his Affairs, but shared opinions with those who were interested.
meanwhile, of confidentiality one of the fundamental principles. Its violation is a reason to overturn the conviction. It happened this time. Due to the behavior of judges their conviction was overturned in appeal. Prisoners was released in the courtroom. And the case, which before was in court more than a year and seven months, sent for a new trial. The judge D. was deprived of his gown.
the System of punishment of judges is a delicate matter. On the one hand, it should provide guarantees of independence of judges. Otherwise, justice will be threatened.
the Figure of the judge is inviolable. It is impossible that the punishment has created opportunities for pressure in the mantle. They say, don’t judge on good, fire bad.
on the other hand, the judge should not feel anything. Special status does not allow him to arrange a drunken brawl, to sleep on their own court proceedings, to prevent red tape.
Because, for example, was dismissed by judge B. of the Krasnodar region. He was drinking with friends in garages. That in itself is not a sin. But someone complained to the police that garage company is walking too noisy.
the police came to check, and the judge here, now former, showed itself in all his drunken glory: rude guards, rushed into the fray, refusing to introduce myself. It twisted and delivered to the Department.
“the police Department B. did not stop the illegal actions and for two hours refused to provide the document, udotovarausi personality, – the review says. – While in the lobby of the police Department, B. struck head senior district H to the forehead, and then struck Sergeant B. a few kicks to the torso”.
Another judge was dismissed for frequent travel abroad, and, in a strange way, justice he managed to exercise, not being present in the workplace.
“In 2015 The., in addition to holiday outside of Russia on 26 working days, and in 2016 – 25 working days. His absence at work with management are not coordinated. Decisions in civil matters and other procedural documents have been dated to the numbers, in which the judge is absent from their offices”, says the survey.
Often the judges have lost their mantle for what ruled the sentences retroactively or coming out of the deliberation room, do read who knows what. Today, when is the audio recording of trials to identify such violations is quite simple. It is only necessary to compare what was actually read out in court, and what the text of the decision then went in. Often, this comparative analysis leads to serious consequences for the judge.
At the same time, the Supreme court emphasized that for unintentional errors when making decisions, a judge should not be punished. If the judge was honest, but wrong in the application of a rule, can not make a claim to it.
“Installing as a General rule, the prohibition on subjecting a judge to disciplinary responsibility is to Express them in the administration of justice opinion and court acts, the Federal legislator proceeded from the fact that in the exercise of judicial activity, errors are possible, not a priori discrediting of the persons that allowed them”, says the survey.
Such errors often arise in the course of resolving a specific case in the interpretation and application of the law. Then they are corrected by higher courts, this is a multi-system cases.
“Such an inadvertent error of the court of ordinary nature can be regarded as a manifestation of unfair treatment of judges to their professional responsibilities and to serve as a basis for applying disciplinary sanctions,” said Russia’s Supreme court.
There are instances when abolishing the punishment of the judges who have made similar mistakes.
