I personally guarantee that we will honestly and decently do our job!

Prikhodko Andrey

Managing partner

Lawyer, Doctor of Laws, recognized media expert on legal issues, legal adviser to famous politicians and businessmen.

Contact now

Differentiation of hooliganism and injuries

One of the common in practice is the situation when investigators classify the actions of a person under Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Hooliganism), and the courts further reclassify the actions of the accused to such articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as: 121 – intentional grievous bodily harm, 122 – grievous bodily harm injury, 125 – intentional minor bodily injury. The reason for this is that investigators, due to lack of time and their unprofessionalism, do not establish in a particular case the object of the crime and the motive for the crime. Thus, investigators do not establish what exactly the criminal actions were aimed at: the violation of public order or the infliction of bodily harm on a certain person.

It must be assumed that hooliganism is a deliberate gross violation of public order on the grounds of obvious disrespect for society, which is accompanied by a special audacity or extreme cynicism. If the violation of public order was not accompanied by special audacity or extreme cynicism, then in this case there will be petty hooliganism. Unlike crimes against the health of a person, when the actions of the perpetrator are accompanied by bodily harm caused by personal hostility, these actions can be classified as hooliganism only in cases where they were combined with obvious to the perpetrator gross violation of public order for obvious reasons. disrespect for society and were accompanied by special audacity or extreme cynicism. At the heart of distinguishing hooliganism from crimes against health are the object of the crime and its motive .
Yes, in the case  № 127/13881/16-k Vinnytsia City Court of Vinnytsia Region came to the following conviction. The person was accused of committing a crime under Part 1 of Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. On March 30, 2016, she was in a nightclub in Vinnytsia. At that time, she had a sudden verbal argument with the victim, during which the victim struck the accused in the leg, and the accused in turn struck the victim several times in the face. Further beatings were stopped by nightclub security guards. However, that night the accused again ran to the victim and, holding her head with her left hand, punched her twice in the face and kicked her in the right hand. At the hearing, the accused testified that she hit the victim due to the fact that the latter kicked her in the leg, and before that she had repeatedly made unfounded demands to her to transfer a number to her wardrobe and a mobile phone. In its judgment of 29 December 2016, the court referred to the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine № 10 of 22 December 2006 “On Judicial Practice in Hooliganism Cases” and noted the following. In resolving the issue of distinguishing criminally punishable hooliganism from petty hooliganism, it should be assumed that in accordance with Part 1 of Article 296 of the Criminal Code hooliganism is a deliberate gross violation of public order on the grounds of obvious disrespect for society, accompanied by extreme audacity or extreme cynicism. If such a violation was not accompanied by special audacity or exceptional cynicism, it must be qualified as petty hooliganism under Article 173 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. On the grounds of special audacity, hooliganism can be considered a gross violation of public order, which was accompanied, for example, by violence with the victim beating or inflicting bodily harm, bullying, destruction or damage to property, disruption of a mass event, temporary cessation of normal activities. or organizations, public transport, etc., or one that the person has not stubbornly stopped for a long time. Hooliganism, which was accompanied by extreme cynicism, can be considered actions combined with demonstrative disregard for generally accepted moral norms, such as shamelessness or gross obscenity, abuse of a sick person, child, elderly person or a person who was helpless, and so on. The court also took into account violence with the victim beating or inflicting bodily harm, bullying, destruction or damage to property, disruption of a mass event, temporary cessation of normal activities of an institution, enterprise or organization, movement of public transport, etc., or such that the person has not stubbornly stopped for a long time. Hooliganism, which was accompanied by extreme cynicism, can be considered actions combined with demonstrative disregard for generally accepted moral norms, such as shamelessness or gross obscenity, abuse of a sick person, child, elderly person or a person who was helpless, and so on. The court also took into account violence with the victim beating or inflicting bodily harm, bullying, destruction or damage to property, disruption of a mass event, temporary cessation of normal activities of an institution, enterprise or organization, movement of public transport, etc., or such that the person has not stubbornly stopped for a long time. Hooliganism, which was accompanied by extreme cynicism, can be considered actions combined with demonstrative disregard for generally accepted moral norms, such as shamelessness or gross obscenity, abuse of a sick person, child, elderly person or a person who was helpless, and so on. The court also took into account temporary cessation of normal activities of an institution, enterprise or organization, movement of public transport, etc., or one that a person has not stubbornly stopped for a long time. Hooliganism, which was accompanied by extreme cynicism, can be considered actions combined with demonstrative disregard for generally accepted moral norms, such as shamelessness or gross obscenity, abuse of a sick person, child, elderly person or a person who was helpless, and so on. The court also took into account temporary cessation of normal activities of an institution, enterprise or organization, movement of public transport, etc., or such that a person has not stubbornly stopped for a long time. Hooliganism, which was accompanied by extreme cynicism, can be considered actions combined with demonstrative disregard for generally accepted moral norms, such as shamelessness or gross obscenity, abuse of a sick person, child, elderly person or a person who was helpless, and so on. The court also took into account abuse of a sick person, child, elderly person or one who was in a helpless state, etc. The court also took into account abuse of a sick person, child, elderly person or one who was in a helpless state, etc. The court also took into accountlegal opinion formulated by the Supreme Court of Ukraine in the decision of 04.10.2012 in the case № 5-17×12, according to which the basis for distinguishing hooliganism from crimes against health, among other things, are the object of the crime, which largely determines the legal nature (character) of each of these acts and their social danger, and such a sign of the subjective side crime as his motive. Hooliganism always encroaches on public order and other objects of protection. Conclusions about the content and direction of this act are made from the nature of the actions of the person who commits them, as well as from the relationship between such a person and the victim. The peculiarity of the motive of hooliganism lies in the causal conditionality. Intentions to do so may be different. What unites them is that they are mostly deprived of any necessity, often arising from a person’s desire to show their superiority (exclusivity), or from unbridled selfishness,
Considering the case, the court came to the conclusion that the actions of the accused indicate that she had intent to inflict bodily harm on the victim. Her actions showed no signs of extreme cynicism or extreme audacity in inflicting bodily harm on the victims. Therefore, the court reclassified the actions of the accused from Part 1 of Article 296 to Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (on the grounds of intentional minor bodily injury).
In another case  № 683/2531/15-k Starokostiantynivsky District Court of Khmelnytsky Region came to a similar conclusion. The court found that the accused had inflicted bodily injuries on the victim not without cause for hooligan motives, but on the grounds of hostility. The court session did not confirm the conclusions of the pre-trial investigation that the accused committed a crime under Part 1 of Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in particular inflicted bodily injuries on the victim of hooligan motives.
The court referred to paragraph 4 of the above resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court “On judicial practice in cases of hooliganism”, according to which courts must distinguish hooliganism from other crimes depending on the intent, motives, purposes of the perpetrator and the circumstances of the crime. Actions accompanied by threats of murder, beating, infliction of bodily harm, committed against family members, relatives, acquaintances and caused by personal hostility, wrongdoing of victims, etc., should be classified under the articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which provide for liability for crimes against the person . These actions are qualified as hooliganism only in those cases when they were combined with an obvious gross violation of public order on the grounds of obvious disrespect for society and were accompanied by a special audacity or extreme cynicism. At the heart of distinguishing hooliganism from crimes against health are the object of the crime and its motive. By its verdict, the court reclassified the actions of the accused from Part 1 of Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (as intentional infliction of light bodily injuries).

20%
discount
If we do not call back during the day
Consultation