Independence of Judges as Immanent Quality of Criminal Justice and Its Severe Problem

Cover Page

Cite item


Independence of judges is an objectively necessary condition for the existence of judicial power and justice in the state, it presupposes the freedom of every judge in choosing a legal position on the issue that he resolves, both from the will of the parties to litigation and from any external influence. External to the judge are not only the impact of the parties in the case under consideration or representatives of non-judiciary or court leadership, but also the corporate impact of the judiciary community or mental attachment to the corporate traditions of the professional communities to which the judge previously belonged. Exposure to all these types of outside influence for the judge constitute an equal threat to his independence and to the justice sent to him. No less threat to justice and objective interests of society is the flip side of judicial independence - judicial arbitrariness. The optimal state approach in ensuring the independence of judges implies a balance between the two extremes - judicial dependence on someone else's opinion and judicial arbitrariness. In modern Russian legislation, the «independence of judges» is defined as the principle of all types of legal proceedings, with the allocation of a special article with this title to all procedural codes. In the laws of the judicial reform of the XIX century, the phrase «independence of judges» is not used at all, although the creation of a truly independent court in conditions of absolute monarchy is recognized as the main achievement of this reform. The authors emphasize on the example of criminal justice that the independence of judges is not ensured at all by its special legislative fixation or elevation in the principles of the process, not by repeated repetition of these words in different legal regulations and even more - not by appeals to specific judges to be independent. Independence of judges can be ensured only by the creation of reliable organizational and procedural mechanisms for its implementation, some of which are analyzed in the article. Among them - the expansion of adversarial principles in the use of special knowledge in the criminal investigation of criminal cases, the introduction of elements of the judicial investigation into the institution of special order of the decision of the court decision with the consent of the accused with the charge, the procedural significance of the reasons for the refusal of the public prosecutor from the prosecution, and others.

About the authors

Aleksandr A Tarasov

Bashkir State University

Author for correspondence.

Doctor of Legal Sciences, Professor, Head of Department of Criminal Law and Procedure, Institute of Law,Bashkir State University

131, Dostoevskogo st., Ufa, Russia, 450005

Irek A Gizatullin

Bashkir State University


Post-graduate student, Department the Criminal Law and Procedure, Institute of Law, Bashkir State University

131, Dostoevskogo st., Ufa, Russia, 450005


  1. Astafiev, A. Yu. (2013) Protsessual'naya nezavisimost' sud'i kak sub»ekta dokazyvaniya: predely diskretsionnykh polnomochii [Procedural Independence of a Judge as a Subject of Proving: The Limits of Discretionary Powers]. Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Pravo [Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: Law]. (1), 327–339. (in Russian)
  2. Barshev, Ya. I. (2001) Osnovaniya ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva s primeneniem k rossiiskomu ugolovnomu sudoproizvodstvu [Grounds for Criminal Procedure with Application to Russian Criminal Process]. Moscow, LeksEst. (in Russian)
  3. Bozh'ev, V. P. (ed.) (2011) Ugolovnyi protsess [The Criminal Procedure]. Moscow, Yurait. (in Russian)
  4. Carns, T. W. & Kruse J. (1991) A Re-Evaluation of Alaska’s Plea Bargaining Ban. Alaska Law Review. 8 (1), 27–69.
  5. Chernyavskii, V. (2004) Sudebnaya vlast' dolzhna poluchit' pravo na samostoyatel'nost' v byudzhetnom protsesse [The Judicial Authority Should Receive the Right to Independence in the Budgetary Process]. Rossijskaja justicija [Russian Justitia]. (4), 2–4. (in Russian)
  6. Chirkin, V. E. (1998) Konstitucionnoe pravo: Rossiya i zarubezhnyi opyt[The Constitutional Law: Russia and Foreign Experience]. Moscow, Zertsalo. (in Russian)
  7. Covey, R. D. (2008) Fixed Justice: Reforming Plea Bargaining with Plea-Based Ceilings. Tulane Law Review. 82, 1238–1290.
  8. Danziger, D. & Gillingham, J. (2005). 1215: The Year of Magna Carta. New York, Simon & Schuster.
  9. Dikarev, I. S. (2016) Nadzorno-kassatsionnaya forma peresmotra sudebnykh reshenii v ugolovnom protsesse[Supervisory-Cassation Form of Judgments Review in Criminal Procedure]. Volgograd, VolGU publ. (in Russian)
  10. Enikeev, Z. D. & Shamsutdinov, R. K. (2006) Problemy ugolovnogo pravosudiya v sovremennoi Rossii [Problems of Criminal Justice in Modern Russia]. Ufa, RIO BashGU. (in Russian)
  11. Forkosch, M. D. Who Are the «People» in the Preamble to the Constitution? CaseWestern Reserve Law Review. 19 (3), 644–712.
  12. Hesse, K. (1981) Osnovy konstitutsionnogo prava FRG [Grundzügedes Verfassungsrechtsder Bundesrepublik Deutschland]. Translated from German by Sidorov, E. A. Moscow, Yuridicheskaya literatura. (in Russian)
  13. Koni, A. F. (2011) Kursugolovnogosudoproizvodstva [The Course of Criminal Justice]. Moscow, Amerikanskaya assotsiatsiya yuristov.
  14. Lazareva, V. A. (2007) Sostyazatel'nost' i dokazyvanie v ugolovnom protsesse [The Adversary Character and Proof in Criminal Procedure]. Ugolovnoe pravo. (3), 98–102. (in Russian)
  15. Lupinskaya, P. A. (ed.) (2004) Ugolovno-protsessual'noe pravo Rossiiskoi Federatsii [The Criminal Procedure Law of the Russian Federation]. Moscow, Yurist'. (in Russian)
  16. McGlynn, S. (2013) Blood Cries Afar: The Forgotten Invasion of England, 1216. Stroud, Gloucestershire, Spellmount.
  17. Mikhailovskaya, I. B. (2006) Nastol'naya kniga sud'i po dokazyvaniyu v ugolovnom protsesse [The Judge's Resource Book for Proving in Criminal Procedure]. Moscow, TK Velbi, Prospekt. (in Russian)
  18. Mikhailovskaya, I. B. (2008) Sudy i sud'i: nezavisimost' i upravlyaemost' [Courts and Judges: the Independence and Controllability]. Moscow, Prospekt. (in Russian)
  19. Mizulina, E. B. (1991) Ugolovnyi protsess: kontseptsiya samoogranicheniya gosudarstva [The Criminal Procedure: the Concept of State Self-Restraint]. The Dissertation of Doctor of Legal Sciences. Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after K.D. Ushinsky. (in Russian)
  20. Morshchakova, T. G. (1990) Sudebnaya reforma. Sbornik obzorov[The Judicial Reform. Collection of Reviews]. Moscow, INION. (in Russian)
  21. Nemytina, M. V. Sud v Rossii: vtoraya polovina XIX — nachalo XX vv. [The Court in Russia: the second half of the XIX — early XX centuries]. Saratov, SYuI MVD RF. 1999. (in Russian)
  22. Nurbaev, D. M. (2014) Vnutrennee ubezhdenie pri otsenke v ugolovnom protsesse preyuditsial'nogo znacheniya reshenii, prinyatykh v grazhdanskom, arbitrazhnom ili administrativnom sudoproizvodstve (po materialam proverki i ugolovnymdelam o prestupleniyakh v sfere ekonomiki) [The Internal Conviction in Assessing the Prejudicial Value of Decisions Taken in Civil, Arbitration or Administrative Proceedings (On Materials of Verification and Criminal Cases in the Sphere of Economy)]. Author's Abstract of Dissertation of Candidate of Legal Sciences. National Research Tomsk State University. (in Russian)
  23. Orgad, L. (2010) The Preamble in Constitutional Interpretation. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 8 (4), 714–738. Available from: doi: 10.1093/icon/mor010.
  24. Petrukhin, I. L. Reforma ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva: problemy i perspektivy. [Reform of Criminal Justice: Problems and Prospects]. Zakonodatel'stvo. (3), 72-81. (in Russian)
  25. Poberezhnyi, V. V. (1993) Garantii nezavisimosti suda pri otpravlenii pravosudiya po ugolovnym delam [The Guarantee sof the Independence of the Courtinthe Administration of Criminal Justice]. The Dissertation of Candidate of Legal Sciences. Lomonosov Moscow State University. (in Russian)
  26. Polyanskii, N. N. (1956) Voprosy teorii sovetskogo ugolovnogo protsessa [Issues of the Theory of the Soviet Criminal Procedure]. Moscow, Moskovskii Universitet publ. Poberezh
  27. Schmitt, C. (2008) Constitutional Theory. London, Duke University Press.
  28. Strogovich, M. S. (1955) Material'naya istina i sudebnye dokazatel'stva v sudebnom ugolovnom protsesse[Substantive Truth and Judicial Evidence in the Judicial Criminal Procedure]. Moscow, Akademiya Nauk SSSR publ. (in Russian).
  29. Strogovich, M. S. (1958) Kurs sovetskogo ugolovnogo protsessa [The Сourse of the Soviet Criminal Process]. Moscow. Akademiya Nauk SSSR publ. (in Russian)
  30. Strogovich, M. S. (1968) Kurs sovetskogo ugolovnogo protsessa [The Сourse of the Soviet Criminal Process]. Vol. 1. Moscow, Akademiya Nauk SSSR publ. (in Russian)
  31. Turner, J. I. (2012) Prosecutors and Bargainingin Weak Cases: A Comparative View. In: Luna, E. & Wade, M. (eds.) The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 102–115.
  32. Turner, R. (2009) King John: England's Evil King? Stroud, Gloucestershire, The History Press.
  33. Warren, W. L. (1990) King John. London, Methuen.
  34. Weninger, R. A. (1987) The Abolition of Plea Bargaining: A Case Study of El Paso County, Texas. UCLA Law Review. 35, 264–313.
  35. Wright, R. & Miller, M. (2002) The Screening/Bargaining Tradeoff. Stanford Law Review. 55 (1), 29–118.
  36. Zhogin, N. V. (ed.) (1973) Teoriya dokazatel'stv v sovetskom ugolovnom protsesse [Theory of Evidence sin the Soviet Criminal Procedure]. Moscow, Yuridicheskaya literatura. (in Russian)

Copyright (c) 2018 Tarasov A.A., Gizatullin I.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies