Review of expert opinions is not a procedural action, and the document drawn up on its basis has no evidentiary value, and therefore does not confirm the existence of newly discovered circumstances in criminal proceedings - CrimCC of the SC

In the cassation appeal, the convicted person pointed to fabricated evidence in criminal proceedings and falsification of expert testimony. He considered the conclusion of an expert study by specialists in the field of forensic medicine of the Bogomolets National Medical University, which, in his opinion, revealed shortcomings in the conclusion of an expert of the regional bureau of forensic medicine, to be a newly discovered circumstance.

The local court dismissed the convict's application for review of the verdict due to newly discovered circumstances, as the said expert opinion was based on the factual circumstances that were known to the parties to the criminal proceedings during the trial.

According to the case file, the subject matter of the examination by the specialists of the Bogomolets National Medical University was only the opinion of the expert of the regional bureau of forensic medical examination, made on the basis of materials to which the specialists of the medical university did not have access. In other words, the specialists' opinion is essentially a review of the expert's opinion obtained within the framework of criminal proceedings, an assessment of the expert's opinion by other experts in the field of forensic medicine, as they stated.

The panel of judges at the CrimCC of the SC highlighted that the review of expert opinions is not a procedural action and that the document resulting from this review does not have evidentiary value. In the sense of the Criminal Procedure Law, a review is not a means of refuting an expert opinion, since the institution of a review of forensic expert opinions is a form of internal control over the quality of expert work and, therefore, does not confirm the existence of newly discovered circumstances in this criminal proceeding.

This conclusion was made by the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, which upheld the decision of the court of appeal.

Resolution of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of 8 August 2024 in case No. 708/1253/15-к (proceedings No. 51- 3802км23) - https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/120948713.

This and other legal positions of the Supreme Court can be found in the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court - https://lpd.court.gov.ua.