A copy of the crime report ended up in a complaint against an advocate: the police punished those responsible

The Committee for the protection of advocates’ rights and guarantees of practice of law of the UNBA secured a police response to violations of the guarantees of legal practice. The Main Department of the National Police in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast announced an internal investigation and disciplinary action against police officers.

The investigator and other officers provided a representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ expert agency with access to certain documents in the criminal case. Although this individual did not have proper procedural status in the proceedings, they were granted access to certain materials, specifically a copy of the criminal complaint. Subsequently, this copy was used as one of the grounds for filing a disciplinary complaint against the advocate with the Qualification and Disciplinary Bar Commission (QDBC).

The advocate appealed to the UNBA. The Committee for the protection of advocates’ rights and guarantees of practice of law noted that the circumstances described may indicate a violation of the requirements of Article 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the non-disclosure of pre-trial investigation data, as well as contain elements of a corresponding crime, liability for which is established under Article 387 of the Criminal Code. They also emphasized separately that disciplinary proceedings cannot be used as a tool to pressure an advocate.

Based on the analysis of the complaint, the Committee found a violation of the advocate’s rights and guarantees of legal practice and sent corresponding letters to the Central District Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipro, the district police department, and the relevant units of the National Forensic Science Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

In response, the police reported that an internal investigation had been initiated and conducted based on the information provided in the complaint. As a result, disciplinary measures were imposed on the responsible police department employees.

Thus, the Committee’s appeal regarding the possible disclosure of pre-trial investigation data and the use of the obtained materials against the advocate resulted in the official acknowledgment of violations at the level of an internal review within the law enforcement agency.

«In this situation, what is important is not so much the severity of the disciplinary action as the very fact that the law enforcement agency acknowledged the erroneous nature of its employees’ actions. This is a matter of principle, since in practice, disciplinary mechanisms are often used against advocates themselves — especially those who take an active procedural stance and are inconvenient for the prosecution, - commented Yevheniy Solodko, chairman of the UNBA Committee, on the case. - Therefore, what matters is not the severity of the punishment, but its inevitability: every instance of a violation of the guarantees of the legal profession must receive an official assessment and have consequences».