[ad_1]
Random selection?
The bar community has recently been found on the millstones of various law enforcement agencies. The first fiddle here seems to be played here by the Special Investigation Service (STT), which does not shy away from posting about insiders but does not yet know how the so-called resounding pre-trial investigations will end. And the lawyers here are probably the most guilty.
An example is the official proposal of the Lithuanian Supreme Court to limit the number of lawyers who can file appeals for cassation. The legal community hints that such an offer may have come after talks with STT officials. So the lower courts’ approach to wiretapping, covert surveillance, arrest and other penalties is understood.
The legal community is already talking about the fact that the allocation of cases, which is supposed to depend solely on a computer program, is sometimes quite strange. So far, the legal community has not made any formal observations and investigations into the assignment of cases to judges, but some observations cast doubt on a supposedly independent computer program.
This is especially notable in cases before pre-trial judges. So what does the official court administration publish? “Cases are assigned to judges using a computer program. The basic principle of case allocation is an automated method of selecting judges through the random selection of judges by a computer program. Furthermore, cases are not only assigned to the random, but also impartially, transparently, independently and expeditiously. ” , – published on the website teismai.lt.
This computer program is the Case Distribution Module of the Information System of the Lithuanian Court LITEKO, whose application in the courts is regulated by the Regulations of the Judicial Council of 2015. September 25 The resolution approved the description of the rules for the distribution of cases to judges and the formation of panels of judges.
Legalized exceptions
Are there other ways besides automatic case assignment? Teismai.lt states that “absolutely all cases in court are automatically divided using the Case Division module in the Lithuanian judicial information system. Therefore there is no other possibility to divide cases in court to judges , that is, without using the module functionalities “.
However, in March this year, a detailed article on behalf of the delfi.lt court administration announces the exceptions mentioned above and manual case allocation. “Cases cannot be assigned to judges automatically only in exceptional and necessary cases: when there are no technical possibilities, when it is appropriate to assign homogeneous cases to one judge at a time and / or a judge, when a private judge must hear a case for reasons procedural, etc. “
Not long ago, the point was established in the case of Judge Ryšardas Skirtūnas. The judge was on trial for accepting a bribe. The verdict explained that, drawing on his knowledge of the then-president of the Criminal Cases Division of the Vilnius Regional Court, the trial judge took steps to appoint R. Skirtūnas to a panel of three judges to hear a specific criminal case on appeal . It was publicly described that the President took a bottle as a gift and was fired for it.
Could situations of a similar nature be repeated today? If not in exceptional cases, it could hardly be said. Doubts then arise as to whether exceptions to automated case allocation presuppose even more sophisticated matters, which are used not only by defendants of various capillary interests but also by special services and the prosecutor’s office itself.
At first, I didn’t pay much attention to the names of the judges who examined the complaint, but then I noticed that the same names of the judges were repeated in the orders issued by the court.
Mandatory exam
There is a saying that “exceptions only confirm the rule.” Lawyer Tomás Meidus agreed to speak to “Kauno diena” about rare and exceptional cases. He points out that exceptions can be understood differently by everyone. Legal practice has a fairly clear understanding of what a resonant or priority case is, and here the exception can be understood differently by everyone.
“I had to deal with it in practice when in a pre-trial investigation case one of the judges of the Lithuanian regional court had to consider a large number of complaints filed by the suspect and his lawyers. At first I did not pay much attention to The names of the judges who examined the complaint, but then I noticed The names of the judges.
These were judges of the Vilnius Regional Court, whose Criminal Cases Division employs almost 20 judges, at least according to publicly available data. To dispel any doubts about the objectivity of the appointment of judges, I have made a request to the President of this Court. From the formal response received, it was learned that in that pre-trial case, the judges were appointed using the “Must Process” button in the Case Assignment Module, selecting from a limited number of judges. It is alleged that this is provided by the internal rules of this court and this is done so as not to expand the number of judges who decided various matters during a pre-trial investigation “, – attorney T. Meidus shared his experience.
He suggested that the distribution of cases be conceived by the judges as a lottery. How many judges does that computer choose to assign to a single case? Let’s imagine: 20 names of balls / umpires are thrown into the boiler and we want to choose one or three from that team. Is there a possibility and probability of an impartial option? Probably yes. But if there are only three or four balls in the pot? The result is completely different than with 20 balls. Such a selection is more akin to accessories, especially if it is necessary to choose not one but three judges from, say, three possible.
The lawyer emphasizes that he does not mean that the three judges will necessarily be partial, but he believes that the problem clearly exists and that things are not as perfect as making them public.
Photo by Andrius Aleksandravičius.
Hand wash?
Let’s talk about arrests. It is remarkable that prosecutors often turn to pre-trial judges for arresting suspects, and if the judge does not order the arrest, a terrible public scandal ensues. Judges, especially those with less seniority, are said to simply be afraid of making a bold but fair decision.
“Although there is the same famous case of judicial corruption. I am not involved in it, so I only know about it from information in the public sphere. But it is enough to form a general image. And it really is not. Was it necessary to arrest all suspected judges for whom prosecutors applied to the pre-trial judge?
To my knowledge, some arrests have been overturned by a higher court, but the damage has already been done. Detention cannot be equated with punishment. Those people will not be guilty until they have been convicted. I can only agree with the rhetorical question recently posed in the media by the President of the Council of Judges, Algimantas Valantinas, and where is that case now? “Other cases initiated aloud by the STT similarly end in silence,” the lawyer said.
T. Meidus drew attention to another problem: working too long as a pretrial investigation judge, without examining other cases and solving problems that arise only during the pretrial investigation.
“I may be wrong, but I have heard that when a young judge takes office, he is often appointed a pre-trial judge. After two or three years, he goes out into the wide water and takes the bottom. But that after some unfavorable decisions , the judge hearing the cases becomes a judge of the pre-trial investigation and no longer retires from there until retirement, “- T. Meidus visually described the situation.
A judge who makes decisions in favor of the prosecutor’s office without even seeing the case file has been revealed, the situation has been brought up to the court administration, and after such confrontation, he returns to the same judge.
According to the lawyer, said judge simply grows up with the prosecutor’s office, STT, or another institution, and his decisions are largely clear. The lawyer has also had to deal with this during his practice.
“A judge has been revealed who makes decisions in favor of the prosecutor’s office without even seeing the case file, the situation is presented to the court administration, and after such confrontation he returns to the same judge. The judge could leave, But no. “In similar cases, the judge assigns one month of detention to the defendants of other lawyers, and all three to the defense attorneys,” teaches T. Meidus.
The driver himself
According to lawyer T. Meidaus, Judge Petras Karvelis has worked in the Vilnius City District Court for almost ten years as a pre-trial investigative judge. “It is unclear what led this judge to specialize in the pre-trial investigation for so long, but it appears that it is a judge who makes favorable decisions for the prosecutor’s office. At least in the cases of my defendants,” the lawyer quipped. .
That judge was called to listen to the lawyer’s complaint, who examined without being familiar with the material of the pre-trial investigation, issued an final appeal rejecting the complaint, but discussed and evaluated the pre-trial investigation.
Following the lawyer’s complaint about a possible forgery by a judge, an internal investigation by the court administration was conducted, during which circumstances it became clear that the pre-trial investigative material was actually received in court only after Judge P. Karvelis issued an final appeal.
Lawyer T. Meidus, a lawyer for the Vilnius Regional Court exercising external administrative control of the Vilnius City District Court, was informed in writing that such conduct by Judge P. Karvelis was intolerable.
According to the lawyer, however, it was not easy to annul the unappealable but clearly illegal judgment of Judge P. Karvelis. Appeals to a higher court are filed with the court that issued the order. Therefore, a lawyer’s complaint about the same final decision is in the hands of Judge P. Karvelis. And what do you think? Judge P. Karvelis, already knowing that the circumstances of his possible negligent error became apparent, by issuing the judgment without becoming familiar with the material of the pre-trial investigation, refuses to accept the complaint and transfer it to a higher court.
In accordance with the law, the lawyer ensures that the complaint is still heard. The Vilnius Regional Court, after examining the complaint presented by the lawyer, annulled the final decision made by Judge P. Karvelis.
Photo by Vytautas Petrikas
Influential apparatus
T. Meidus admits that the legal community cannot, in principle, influence or determine decision makers that such situations are more than doubtful with the apprehension of judges to prosecutors and special services, and the exceptions mentioned above to computerized case allocation , they can change.
The lawyer hopes that the disclosure of existing problems, which are well known to the legal community but not disclosed, will help the public obtain a fairer picture of the influence of the state repressive apparatus in court.
Is it possible to influence the activities of the highest courts in Lithuania under the guise of various corruption prevention programs? It is the STT that assesses the corruption risks of the Lithuanian courts, as well as of other state institutions.
And any member of the public can pass under the millstones of the prosecutor’s office or STT under current conditions. By the way, lawyers often talk to each other that statistics on how many judges reject the prosecutor’s requests and how many they satisfy would be much more expressive and the situation, to put it mildly, uncomfortable for many.
Commentary
Petras Karvelis
Judge of the pre-trial investigation of the Vilnius City District Court
The point is that according to article 181 of the CCP, it is not necessary for judges to request pre-trial investigative material. We asked the prosecutor to send the ruling, which I received by email. The prosecutor’s office also automatically sent the material. Due to the prosecutor’s decision to refuse to accept the lawyer’s request, which made it clear that the lawyer’s request was unfounded at that stage, I made the decision to dismiss the lawyer’s request.
The Vilnius Regional Court ruled that the material was still necessary and voided my order.
Regarding my expulsion in relation to the issue of detention sanctions, the President of the Court ruled that he was not interested in all these events and did not expel me. It was a misunderstanding.
The problem was that that order was not subject to appeal. However, the lawyer was able to contact the prosecutor again and the problem would be resolved. The lawyer decided otherwise.
No disciplinary proceedings were initiated against me, but I had to write explanations, I was summoned before the president of the Vilnius Regional Court. At that time I convinced the President that the law did not stipulate that a judge must have access to pretrial investigative material.
In other cases, it’s written directly that the pre-trial judge makes the decision after being familiar with the pre-trial investigative material, and it’s written here that he makes the decision within seven days, and that’s it.
That is, if he had enough information to make a decision on the order made by the prosecutor, he would tell the then President that if he had demanded that material and had not read it. Formal violation I still think today that I have not hurt anything because the law does not require it.
When it comes to complaints, in certain cases it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the material of the pre-trial investigation, when it is written that the judge makes a decision within ten days from the date of receipt of the complaint, in which case we must do it. I am now demanding pretrial investigative material, but other judges have not yet.
After receiving the prosecutor’s decision, you already knew what decision to make, for whom you should read that pretrial investigative material.
[ad_2]
