Improvement of the procedural form of activity of a specialist in criminal proceedings

Abstract

In the article, the authors substantiate the need to improve the procedural form of a specialist's participation in criminal proceedings in terms of conducting research. This need is due to the introduction of the latest tools into the practice of criminal justice which can significantly expand the possibilities in solving the tasks of criminal offences investigation. Only specialists are able to use such tools effectively. At the same time, the legislatively enshrined methods of exercising the functions of specialists and experts are not always sufficient for the efficient use of such opportunities. Recent amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine are aimed at improving the activities of specialists in criminal proceedings. However, they do not fully ensure the effective use of modern technical means for the purpose of collecting and verifying evidence. The purpose of the use of specialised knowledge is not properly defined in the law, and the factual data obtained by specialists by drawing up conclusions may lead to the formation of inadmissible evidence. At the same time, the need to legalise the research conducted by specialists and to provide the results of such research with evidentiary value seems urgent. It is necessary to improve the legal regulation of the activities of a specialist in criminal proceedings, providing for the possibility for the said subject to conduct not only identification, but also search and diagnostic research. At the same time, experts should be given the right to conduct research and issue certificates rather than conclusions. This will help to distinguish between the results of the work of an expert and a specialist. The main areas of research carried out by specialists should be aimed at rapid analysis of material objects, the use of search and analytical methods and tools for the study of digital traces, and other innovative offensive forensic techniques. Specialist certificates should not replace expert opinions, but should be an effective supplement to procedural sources of evidence.