Contact center of the Ukrainian Judiciary 044 207-35-46
In this criminal proceeding, the courts of previous instances found the defendant guilty and convicted him under Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In the cassation appeal, the defence argued that during the defendant’s final statement, the presiding judge of the trial court demonstrated bias and prematurely expressed his position regarding the defendant’s guilt.
Setting aside the decisions of the lower courts and ordering a new trial in the court of first instance, the Supreme Court stated that, after reviewing the audio recording of the hearing at which the defendant delivered his final statement, it was confirmed that the presiding judge had indeed expressed his position. He pointed to circumstances that would prevent the issuance of an acquittal before the court retired to the deliberation room. This constitutes a violation of the secrecy of judicial deliberations, which serves as a safeguard for the impartiality and objectivity of the court’s decision. Only in the deliberation room are the issues listed in Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine decided and evidence assessed and compared - that is, the court considers the full set of circumstances, including those affecting whether the defendant’s guilt has been proven or not.
The panel of judges of the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court emphasized that displays of emotion by a court during a hearing violate the principle of detachment and may cast doubt on the legality of the decision and the fairness of the judicial process as a whole.
Resolution of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of 17 September 2025 in case No. 161/1961/24 (proceeding No. 51-2426êì25) – https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130378204.
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.
_03_03.png)