Підозра у кримінальному провадженні: кримінальна процесуальна та криміналістична складові поняття

Abstract

Досліджено поняття підозри у кримінальному процесі. Акцентовано увагу на комплексній складовій цього поняття, яке, оскільки є правовою категорією, має психологічне походження. Проведено критичний аналіз наявних підходів до визначення підозри, співвідношення цієї категорії з поняттям «повідомлення про підозру», надано авторські пропозиції щодо цього. Зазначено про неузгодженість проблеми формалізації підозри у вигляді повідомлення про неї особі. Висловлено авторську позицію щодо співвідношення поняття підозри та криміналістичної версії. Наголошено на проблемі інституалізації підозри у кримінальному процесі за обсягом, щодо чого також надано авторські пропозиції.The article examines the concept of suspicion in criminal proceedings. Attention is focused on the complex component of this concept, which, being a legal category, has a psychological origin. A critical analysis of approaches to defining suspicion and the relationship between this category and the concept of «notification of suspicion» is conducted, and the author’s proposals on this issue are presented. The inconsistency of the problem of formalising suspicion in the form of notification of it to the person is noted. The author’s position on the relationship between the concept of suspicion and the criminalistic version is expressed. The problem of institutionalising suspicion in criminal proceedings in terms of scope is emphasised, and the author’s proposals are also provided. It has been established that, despite the absence of the concept of suspicion at the level of criminal procedural law, it is thoroughly developed in criminal procedural doctrine. The concept of suspicion is psychological in nature and is a type of version that determines the attitude of an investigator, inquiry officer or prosecutor towards a particular person, and the assessment of his connection to the committed criminal offence. This indicates that the concept of suspicion should be considered both from the point of view of the procedural form and from the point of view of its psychological nature and category, which is studied by legal psychology and criminalistics. It is emphasised that the issue of formalising suspicion in the form of notifying the person concerned remains unresolved. Considering that from the moment of actual detention, the person acquires the status of a suspect, and no written notification of suspicion is presented to him, it is necessary to discuss the oral notification of the person about the grounds for his detention and the criminal offence of which he is suspected. That is why, when defining the concept of suspicion, it should be taken into account that notification of suspicion can be formalised both in writing and orally. The institution of suspicion is a much broader concept than merely the notice of suspicion. They are related as a whole and a part, where suspicion includes not only notification of suspicion, but also the concepts of suspicion, suspect, justification (proof) of suspicion, drawing up a notice of suspicion as a procedural document, change of previously notified suspicion, and appeal against notification of suspicion. Therefore, the more precise approach is to treat the institution of suspicion in criminal procedure as encompassing the rules regulating the procedure for notifying a person of suspicion.