Not so long ago scandal thundered, in which appear the judge of the Central district court of Nikolaev (further - TsRS) Vladimir Aleynikov and the deputy of the Nikolaev City Council Sergey Polyantsev whom accuse of bribery. During two meetings Aleynikov together with the lawyer of the deputy interfered with work of journalists, violating the law of Ukraine.
For the first time, I will remind, the judge instead of considering case nearly half an hour spent on dispute with my colleague Alyona Melnikova, trying to prove that «black–this white, and white–this black».
He decided to treat on the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, having declared that can forbid to use a dictophone in the courtroom. The lawyer at that time cried out that the recorder prevents it to protect the accused. Also I suggested even to expel the journalist, thereby urging the judge to violate the Criminal Procedure Code.
Hmm…Same what thus, tell, it prevented to conduct the line of protection? About what the lawyer or Polyantsev were going to say to the judge that presence didn't want «excess ears» ?! And why Aleynikov so opposed to photofixing? Oh, is given to me that the reason of the last that this judge was on a meeting without cloak and a breastplate, and this violation of the important law «About the status of judges». And after all if the judge breaks the law regulating his work, where a guarantee that he not «will spit» on other acts?! Personally this fact causes vigilance in me and partly forms mistrust to the judge.
Some days of later, during the next meeting in the matter of the deputy of the suspect of bribery (on Monday, May 18), already six journalists listened «stream of consciousness» judges, his position on this occasion were also indignant from - for an illegal decision of Aleynikov. To me too «has the luck» to watch it «solo performance».
With your permission, dear readers, small «lyrical digression» …It is remembered, in March of this year the Ukrainian mass media joyfully «blew» about that the law «came into forceAbout the right for a fair trial» , which is urged to facilitate control of judicial system.This document allows all) (!) attendees to record video in a hall of public court session, to photograph without the permission on that the judge. But, as I noticed, only his certain judges adhere. For example, in Leninsk court of Nikolaev of problems with a photo and video fixing doesn't arise, judges work in the habitual mode and don't react to the included cameras. In the Central regional court (to read, the judge Aleynikov), apparently, didn't hear about this document…Though isn't present, heard. But persistently refuse to take into account.
Aleynikov tries to position himself, as the judge basic. Like, he tries to provide the right of the defendant of to protect as much as possible. Here only it reaches at it marasmus.
As well as that time, on this court session Aleynikov dared to spend more than twenty minutes of procedural time for chatter–he told about own, alternative, vision of a situation. And it, by the way, contradicts article 28 Criminal Procedure Code «About reasonable terms». More than 20 minutes various «pearls».
- The publication of information about the person (is allowed) at its consent, - the judge told.
But he held back that this public figure. The defendant after all is the deputy of the City Council–the person to whom voters entrusted to present their interests in local government. And activity of all the vlastyimushchikh it is public. And these «took» that it simply the person who in court tries to be protected supposedly it not as the deputy here. About as!?! The floor of hour it (Polyantsev, - a comment) was the deputy, participated in a meeting of the commissions of the City Council, and, having come to court, stopped being it?
I will remind, on October 16, 2014 Polyantseva caught «on hot» at taking of a bribe. Polyantsev, being the deputy head of administration of the Central district of Nikolaev and the deputy of city council, I demanded from the business owner money for the solution of a question concerning placement «small architectural forms» in the Central district of the city of Nikolaev.
That Polyantsev took a bribe being the authority. Money gave it for the solution of problems with Mafami. He didn't put the mandate. So, it isn't surprising that on a dock I see the deputy of the City Council, but not simply the uncle Seryozha.
- To exhaust quotes…I have the right someone to beat, but it doesn't mean that I can beat you, - the judge quite so reacted to the phrase that in the item of 3 St.11 laws «About the right for a fair trial» it is accurately registered, who and as can carry out a photo and video fixing in the courtroom.
- Give we (journalists) we will do the work, and you (judge)–the, it is somehow stated in the law ( «About the right for a fair trial» ), - I speak, having got a bit tired from altercations.
- Your work in this case…only you do it…interferes with it to be protected in court, - Aleynikov answered.
- How?–I continue.
- Interferes with it! In total! Interferes with it!–the judge gave out.
- And argument?
- Any. Interferes with it, - the judge shouted.
«Iron» logic, isn't it?! That is, Aleynikov considered it unnecessary to be guided by laws and articles.
And at once it is followed by the phrase which simply shocked attendees at a meeting:
- All is possible for the defendant! All is possible for the victim! All is possible for the parties of process!, - «I gave out» Aleynikov.
Here they, Polyantsev with the lawyer, also create that want.
Already later, during mine «unofficial» conversation with Aleynikov, he started talking that the lawyer is guilty of everything, he opposes shooting of trial in the matter of Polyantsev. And that if that was silent, the judge wouldn't pay attention to journalists.
Really «I made noise» defender of the deputy of the City Council. And, he so zealously acted that from time to time I wanted to cause «fast» , suddenly the person has a nervous breakdown. Shouts, sticking by fingers, attempts of what to accuse and convict journalists, requests, to be exact the requirement, to make illegal decisions…Dear lawyer, you though know, what such lawyer ethics?! And articles Criminal Procedure Code?! To mind it isn't conceivable when the lawyer doesn't understand about what speaks and that demands. Namely such there was an impression at attendees who observed for «work» defender.
Alas, but as - that is poorly trusted me in told by Aleynikov, considering that, how many efforts he made to defend the defendant's position, what is the time spent, and also that took out an illegal ban.
And here I heard explanations Aleynikov «the understanding» Criminally - the procedural code:
- To the Criminal Procedure Code it is written that and, people have the right without the permission of court to use a dictophone but where to the Criminal Procedure Code it is written that people have the right without the permission of attendees to use a dictophone, - «I gave out» it.
It I so understand, what on its logic, and resolutions and definitions can take out all parties of process?! It that for such interpretation of the legislation?!
After I began «long song» about the principles and morality…
- But, if the person doesn't want (Polyantsev against presence of journalists on consideration of the case, - an edition)…What to do? Where it is written?! You can describe my work, you can write that I something said that I was late for a meeting that I stated something–there are no claims. But life human–not toy. The person doesn't want also this his right. And it yet not condemned, and nobody knows, whether will condemn him or not (though Polyantsev already admitted taking of a bribe, - to an edition). Therefore the ordinary person, with the usual life has to come to court, he agrees to speak to court, but he doesn't agree to speak to crowd. It, excuse, its right, - the judge explained.
Forgive, but «as peas about a wall» - I with it spoke about laws and work of court, and Aleynikov reduced everything to wishes of the client…oh, I made a reservation, the defendant.
It would be simply remarkable if judges became though a little more fairly and thought more widely. But them «basic decisions» shouldn't go to a section with the Ukrainian legislation. Unless not so? If each judge begins «to adjust» the law under the desirable decision, what as a result we will receive?! Most likely, something like: I will put the bearded hooligan for the maximum term because it not to be pleasant to me; and this blonde I will appoint probation, let she also killed two people, but after all she such young…
- And you don't consider, what thanks to your actions and your lawyer, court turns into circus? - journalists took an interest.
- You now came... I don't know who gave you such order... Here that I to you made? I can't understand, - Polyantsev answered.
- How to understand, «that I to you made» ? You are a deputy of the City Council, you represent interests of voters, our interests including. And you take bribes (Earlier Polyantsev admitted that really took money for assistance of dismantle of MAFA, - PN), - the member of the media was indignant.
- You have no right to publish, - he echoed words of the lawyer who it is groundless declared that journalists need permission of the judge to publish the indications of the defendant sounded at a public meeting - you execute someone's order but whose I don't know. I don't know for what you come here. For what?!
- You the public person - the deputy of the City Council who is accused of bribery. Or you consider, what it not an important issue? - the journalist continued.
- Not important, - the deputy justified.
You understand that when Aleynikov crosses a threshold of the Nikolaev TsRS, it isn't simple Volodya with baggage of emotions and prejudices any more, and it–judge. The one who is guided in the decisions by laws, the one who thinks of articles Criminal Procedure Code.
And in practice it turns out that it takes out doubtful definition–forbids even that, on what can't influence (and it is accurately stated in the Criminal Procedure Code which the judge likes to designate «clever book» ). It is strange that he didn't pass the decision to close court session, that is to expel all press and to consider case «behind the closed door». But in that case the lawyer would have to call the intelligible reasons and articles of the code, but it isn't simple «to talk profusely». Alyona Melnikova already I wrote, under what circumstances it is possible to close trial or part of consideration of the case in the blog.
Listening to the judge, quite often I glanced towards the prosecutor. That sat calmly, as if, that occurs absolutely normally. And when asked it into the account of a ban of use of dictophones and cameras the press, that lowered eyes and murmured: «to the discretion of vessels». Then the prosecutor, the gosudartsvenny accuser, didn't excite that at his presence the judge «crosses» through the Criminal Procedure Code?! And without saying it that he has to be interested in openness and transparency of process. And in general, apparently, the prosecutor wasn't revolted by attempt of a tightening of trial.
That day - proofs didn't start consideration of a photo–soon after removal by the judge of definition, the prosecutor left a conference hall, having referred to that other court session in which he is a state prosecutor begins.
And here it should be added that Aleynikov was late for court session in the matter of Polyantsev more than for half an hour. And having entered the hall, he didn't find time to explain to attendees about the delay reason though it is assumed by judicial ethics. But, as they say, not lordly this business to come true for delay.
Only one court session opened a set of gross violations of the legislation by the judge, that who has to honor and protect the law.
On all above to the described facts I already wrote complaints to the Highest qualification commission of judges, to prosecutor's office (concerning violation of the Criminal Procedure Code), and also I intend to appeal to Administrative district court of Nikolaev.
Instead of an epilog I bring to your attention the Code of professional judicial ethics:
- Judges have to seek to respect these rules in the professional, public work and private life for the sake of the statement of independence and impartiality of judicial authority, strengthening of her authority on society.
- The judge has to be a law-abidingness example, steadily observe the oath and always behave so that to strengthen belief of citizens in honesty, independence, impartiality and justice of court.
- The judge has to avoid any illegal influence on its activity connected with justice implementation. He has no right to use the official position in personal interests or in interests of other persons.
- The judge can't belong to political parties and labor unions, participate in any political activity, have the representative mandate, hold any other paid positions, perform other paid work, except scientific, teaching and creative.
- The judge has the right to participate in public work, public actions if they don't do harm to its status, to authority of court and can't influence justice implementation.
- The judge has to carry out carefully and impartially duties assigned to him and maintain the professional competence up to standard.
- The judge has no right to disclose information which to it became known in connection with consideration of the case in the closed court session. The judge in the order determined by the law gives to mass media opportunity to receive data, excluding thus violations of the rights and freedoms of citizens, humiliation of their honor and advantage, and also authority of court and the status of the judge.
- The judge has to carry out legal proceedings in limits and as it should be, determined by the procedural law, and to show thus tactfulness, politeness, endurance and respect for participants of trial and other faces.
- The judge at administration of justice shouldn't allow manifestations by participants of process or other persons of disrespect for the person on signs of race, a floor, a nationality, religion, political views, socially - an economic situation, physical defects and so forth.
- The judge has to abstain from behavior, any actions or statements which can lead to loss of belief in equality of professional judges, jurymen and jurors at justice implementation.
- The judge has to use reasonable efforts according to the sane, law-abiding and informed person, his behavior was regarded by the faultless.