Suspension of an investigator during a pre-trial investigation

Any criminal proceeding carries risks, but the situation becomes significantly more complicated when an investigator demonstrates bias, violates procedures, blocks access to case materials, or makes decisions that go beyond the law. Such actions cause the investigation to move in the wrong direction, the right to defense is undermined, questionable evidence is formed, and the risk of a prosecutorial bias increases.

In many cases, it is precisely the investigator’s behavior that forces people to seek professional assistance, as the lack of control over the process can lead to a losing position even before the court stage begins.

What can actually be done?

The term “removal of an investigator” is not used in legislation, but the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine provides for the recusal of an investigator. This is the only procedural mechanism that allows replacing the person conducting the pre-trial investigation.

Recusal of an investigator is a procedural request to remove a pre-trial investigation officer when real circumstances exist that cast doubt on their impartiality (Articles 77, 80 of the CPC of Ukraine).

This is a direct tool for influencing the course of the pre-trial investigation and often becomes decisive in fighting unlawful actions of law enforcement.

A recusal motion may be filed by a suspect, their defense lawyer, a victim, or the victim’s representative. The motion is considered by a prosecutor or an investigating judge, depending on the circumstances. It is important that the recusal is filed immediately after discovering signs of bias, as delays reduce the chances of a positive outcome.

Grounds for recusing an investigator

The law defines specific criteria, including:

• personal interest in the outcome of the criminal proceedings;
• previous involvement in the case in another role (witness, complainant, expert);
• family or official ties with other participants in the proceedings;
• violation of the principles of objectivity and legality;
• actions affecting evidence, procedural decisions, or creating pressure on the defense.

In practice, additional indicators often lead to recusal: selective responses to motions, artificially created grounds for searches, delays or interrogations, refusal to include obvious evidence of the defense, manipulation of procedural deadlines, or attempts to pressure a suspect into cooperation contrary to the law.

These circumstances often occur in real cases, which is why recusal is an effective mechanism for restoring balance.

Consequences of leaving a biased investigator in the case

Practice shows that when an investigator acts with bias, the process turns into a mechanism for constructing artificial evidence. The defense loses the ability to effectively respond, evidence becomes irrelevant, and the rights of the parties are violated.

As a result:

• illegal searches appear;
• interrogations are conducted without proper procedural compliance;
• items unrelated to the case are seized;
• pressure is exerted on participants in the proceedings;
• procedural decisions are made with an obvious accusatory inclination.

Well-known cases of the Supreme Court confirm that improper actions of an investigator can nullify the right to a fair process.

In the case law of the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court, it is repeatedly emphasized that any sign of bias by a pre-trial investigation officer casts doubt on the admissibility of evidence and violates the principle of fair justice. These Supreme Court positions provide a clear guideline for the defense when filing motions to remove an investigator.

How does recusal of an investigator protect your interests?

Applying for recusal can radically change the course of the investigation. After the motion is granted:

• the case is assigned to another investigator;
• unlawful decisions are reviewed;
• investigative actions are repeated in compliance with the procedure;
• the defense gains real opportunities to influence the proceedings;
• the evidence base is cleared of questionable materials.

This resets the process and restores the balance necessary for a fair investigation.

What do Prikhodko & Partners lawyers do?

Our team supports clients at all stages of the pre-trial investigation and ensures the effective application of investigator recusal.

Work stages

1. Analysis of the proceedings and the investigator’s procedural behavior.
2. Collection of evidence of bias and violations.
3. Preparation of a substantiated recusal motion.
4. Representation before the prosecutor or the investigating judge.
5. Support during repeated investigative actions and monitoring legality.
6. Appealing unlawful decisions made prior to the recusal.
7. Strategic planning of further defense.

We work quickly, precisely, and argumentatively, using procedural norms as well as Supreme Court practice.

Doubts regarding the investigator’s impartiality are a signal to contact a lawyer immediately. Every moment of delay gives the prosecution an advantage.

Sign up for a consultation with Prikhodko & Partners — we will conduct an express analysis of your situation and determine whether there are grounds for recusal of the investigator today.