ABUSE OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS IN TERMS OF THE REQUIREMENTS (PRINCIPLES) OF TACTICAL METHODS OF ADVOCATES

The abuse of procedural rights by lawyers in criminal proceedings is a legal phenomenon which cannot be considered solely within the framework of the science of criminal procedure. The science of criminal procedure is inextricably linked to forensic science, despite the self-sufficiency of each of them. Given this relationship, for the purpose of a comprehensive study of the analysed concept, we consider it appropriate and necessary to characterise the acts considered to be an abuse of procedural rights under the criminal procedure doctrine from the perspective of such a science as forensic science. One of the sections of forensic science is forensic tactics. Modern scholars also include the tactics of a lawyer (in particular, a defence lawyer and a lawyer representing the victim). We are of the opinion that the tactics of a lawyer should also include lawyers representing clients with other procedural statuses, for example, a witness. Forensic scientists working in the field of forensic tactics have developed a set of requirements (principles) of tactical techniques. It was the examination of procedural behaviour through the prism of the relevant requirements (principles) provided for in the doctrine of tactical techniques that made it possible to find out that acts considered to be an abuse of procedural rights (from the point of view of criminal procedure) are inadmissible tactical techniques (from the point of view of forensics). This is due to the fact that such actions do not meet the requirements (principles) of legality (in terms of the spirit of the law) and ethics (in terms of moral principles, in particular, good faith). At the same time, they may meet the requirement (principle) of selectivity, depending on the content of the tactical task, the means of implementation and the expected, actual results of such a task. We believe that a promising area for further research is the development of a system of scientific provisions and recommendations to counteract such procedural behaviour of advocates by both law enforcement officers and opposing counsel.