Security guards detaining a person under Art. 207 of the CPC of Ukraine are not obliged to explain the rights of a suspect to that person, as this duty belongs to authorised officials who must be immediately notified of the detention - SC CrimCC

In this criminal proceeding, the courts of previous instances found the accused guilty and convicted him under part 2 of Article 15 and part 2 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In the cassation appeal, the defence argued that the detention of the appellant by shop security guards had been unlawful because they had failed to explain the rights of a suspect to him.

Assessing these arguments of the cassation appeal, the Supreme Court pointed out that part 2 of Article 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine clearly provides that any person may detain, without an order of an investigating judge or court, any individual (except those specified in Articles 482 and 482-2 of the Code) in the following cases: 1) during the commission of or attempt to commit a criminal offence; 2) immediately after the commission of a criminal offence or during the uninterrupted pursuit of a person suspected of having committed it. Any person who is not an authorised official (i.e. a person authorised by law to carry out detention) and who detains a relevant person in accordance with part 2 of Article 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine is obliged to immediately deliver that person to an authorised official or immediately notify an authorised official of the detention and the whereabouts of the person suspected of committing a criminal offence (part 3).

The courts of previous instances established that the grounds for the detention by shop security were information from CCTV cameras showing that the detained person had taken a bottle of alcohol from a shelf, placed it in a backpack, passed through the checkout area without paying and was heading towards the exit. Therefore, the actions of the security guard who detained the person near the exit, as the individual was attempting to leave the shop premises with the stolen item, were lawful and complied with the requirements of part 2 of Article 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The detention and the whereabouts of the person were immediately reported to an authorised official, as confirmed by the report in the case file concerning the receipt of the relevant notification by the 102 police service.

As regards the failure to explain the rights of a suspect to the person upon detention by security guards under Article 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Supreme Court noted that the aforementioned provision does not impose such an obligation. Explaining the rights of a suspect upon detention falls within the competence of authorised officials of a law enforcement agency. After arriving at the scene, those officials acted in accordance with the requirements of the CPC of Ukraine, and their actions were not challenged by the defence.

Resolution of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated 11 December 2025 in case No 215/3066/19 (proceedings No 51-2905км24) – available at: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132556366.

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.