GUILT AS A SUBJECTIVE SIDE OF LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY OF JUDGE

The article reveals the main aspects of determining the guilt of a judge as a subjective aspect of imposing legal responsibility on him. It was established that the key aspects of determining the guilt of a judge as a subjective aspect of imposing legal responsibility on him are represented by the provisions of such legislative and regulatory documents as the Constitution of Ukraine, the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine «On the independence of the judiciary», the Law of Ukraine «On the implementation of decisions and the application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights», Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine «On judicial practice in cases of crimes against human life and health», Law of Ukraine «On the judicial system and the status of judges». It was found that the evidence of the judge's guilt in relation to the offense committed by him today is one of the important issues of imposing a certain type of legal liability on him. It has been determined that judges often commit offenses due to the adoption of unfounded and often illegal court decisions. It has been proved that the guilt of judges for the offenses committed by them is manifested as a result of non-compliance or disregard for the norms of procedural legislation or labor discipline. It has been determined that in order to make a court decision, a judge is obliged to determine the norms of the law, a number of bylaws and study judicial practice in considering the relevant court case. It has been established that one of the elements of a judge's fault is an inner conviction. It has been established that the subject of the court case regarding the adoption by the judge of an unjustified and illegal court decision is not the corpus delicti, which is present in the actions of the judge, but the legality of that, or the investigator will refuse to initiate a criminal case against the judge for making an unjust decision. It was found that the practical methods of determining the guilt of a judge in committing an offense should be a comprehensive study of the materials of the case, which is open against the judge, and the analysis of data from the judge's dossier, in particular, data on the consideration of such cases by a judge and the adoption of appropriate court decisions on them. It has been proven that quite often the release of a judge from legal liability occurs in conditions when offenses committed by a judge are re-qualified as a miscarriage of justice.