A criminal cannot be released from punishment in the aggregate without appreciating all the crimes – SC

The Criminal Code provided for in Articles 70 (imposition of punishment for the aggregate of crimes) and 75 (exemption from serving a sentence of probation) of the Criminal Code do not provide for a separate procedure for the imposition of punishment for the aggregate of crimes in cases where the person to whom the exemption from punishment was applied before the verdict in the first case committed another crime, for which she is sentenced to punishment, from which she is also released on probation.

 As the independent enforcement of such sentences is not based on the requirements of the law on criminal liability, imposing a final sentence in accordance with the requirements of Part 4 of Art. 70 of the Criminal Code, the court has the right to reasonably decide the issue of release of a person from serving a final sentence of probation, and to determine the probationary period in the manner and within the limits provided by Art. 75 of the Criminal Code.

 The relevant conclusion is the decision of the Joint Chamber of the Court of Cassation of 23 September 2019 in Case No. 199/1496/17.

 The person of the court of the first instance was convicted under Part 2 of Art. 309 of the Criminal Code, namely, the unlawful purchase and storage of narcotic drugs without the aim of re-marketing, until the punishment of imprisonment for a term of 3 years.

 Based on Art. 75 of the Criminal Code, a person was released from serving a sentence with a trial period of 2 years.

 By the decision of the Court of Appeal, the appeal of the First Deputy Prosecutor against the verdict of the local court was left without satisfaction, and the verdict of the court of first instance was not changed.

The prosecutor’s cassation appeal was upheld by the Sun, in view of the following

  The systematic interpretation of the law on criminal liability gives rise to the conclusion that the basis for deciding whether a court can punish a set of crimes if one of them becomes aware after the sentence that the person was sentenced to serve has been released from serving a sentence the probationary period, to impose a final sentence and to release him from serving his probationary term shall be based on the principles laid down in Articles 11, 50 of the Criminal Code, the mechanisms of implementation of which are laid down in the norms provided by Articles 65-87 of the Criminal Code, EMA and art. 75 of this Code.

 The logic of criminal liability law in this context is that the imposition of punishment on a person who has committed more than one crime for which she has not been held liable to a sentence should involve an assessment of the entire set of crimes committed prior to the sentence, since such an aggregate characterizes the degree of social danger of both the guilty person and the crimes committed by him, a proper assessment of which is a prerequisite for being elected as a form of criminal responsibility and, and a proper measure of criminal influence.

 In turn, the artificial rupture of such an aggregate assessment of crimes, which results in their isolated assessment of different sentences, if one of them became aware after the first sentence, which sentenced the person sentenced to serve the sentence of release, is obviously inconsistent with the logic of the law on criminal liability for criminal evaluation of criminal acts and perpetrator in the context of the provisions of Articles 50, 65, 75 of the Criminal Code.

 The reason for the release of a person from serving a sentence of probation is the conviction of the court revealed in the reasoned opinion about the possibility of correcting it without serving a sentence. The court comes to this conclusion on the basis of the information it assesses at the time of sentencing, in particular, information about the crime (s) committed by the person.

 At the same time, committing a person of not one but two or more crimes can have a decisive influence on the content of the conclusion that the person can be corrected without serving a sentence, the type and size of the punishment imposed.

 That is why the court, in imposing punishment for a crime (crimes), which (s) became known after the first sentence was passed, to which the punishment of serving a person was released pursuant to the provisions of Art. 75 of the Criminal Code, should decide on the possibility of exemption from serving a sentence of probation, taking into account all the crimes committed.