Persons are co-perpetrators of premeditated murder if they acted with intent to commit this crime and inflicted various bodily injuries to the victim, regardless of which of them was the direct cause of death - SC CrimCC

This conclusion was reached by the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court following the consideration of case No. 760/7012/17-к.

In this criminal proceeding, a local court convicted two people under paragraph 12 of part 2 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, namely that one of the accused stabbed the victim twice in the neck and chest during the conflict, and the other accused, helping to overcome the victim's resistance, hit him in the back of the head with pliers, immobilising him. After that, the defendants set fire to books and magazines in the room, which resulted in the victim receiving burns. The victim died at the scene of the crime from a penetrating stab wound to the neck. The court of appeal overturned this verdict against one of the defendants and closed the criminal proceedings on the basis of paragraph 2 of part 1 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, noting that his blow to the back of the victim's head was not the proximate cause of the victim's death, which refutes the existence of an intent to kill and excludes his involvement in the victim's death. The court of appeal classified the actions of the other defendant under part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

By cancelling the decision of the court of appeal and ordering a new trial in the court of appeal, the Supreme Court stated that each of the persons who inflicted injuries to the victim with the intent to kill, regardless of which of them was the direct cause of death, should be held liable as a co-perpetrator. Co-perpetrators of premeditated murder are also persons who, although they did not commit the acts that directly caused the victim's death, but, being united with other co-perpetrators of murder by a single intent, performed some of the actions that the group considered necessary to implement this intent.

As noted by the CrimCC of the Supreme Court, the court of appeal did not provide convincing arguments that would refute the conclusion of the local court on the joint actions of the persons, and did not substantiate by the circumstances of the case that the actions of one defendant were not connected by a single intent and purpose with the actions of the other. When assessing the circumstances, it should be noted that the question of whether the actions of persons were united by a common intent does not always depend on the existence of a prior conspiracy. 

Resolution of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of 14 January 2025 in case No. 760/7012/17-к (proceedings No. 51- 5440км19) https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/124689381.

This and other legal opinions of the Supreme Court are available in the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court - https://lpd.court.gov.ua.