Status of a defence attorney in criminal proceedings: Comparative legal analysis of countries’ experience

Issue 56, 2024

Arnur Abzelov, Assyl Sabitova, Yuliya Gavrilova, Indira Smailova, Kairat Alembayev

Received 13.01.2024, Revised 29.04.2024, Accepted 11.06.2024

https://doi.org/10.54919/physics/56.2024.161hd0

Abstract

Relevance. The relevance of this study is due to the fact that, at the moment, the protection of the rights of the parties in legal proceedings is not effective and or high quality.

Purpose. The purpose of the work is to analyse the activities of the institution of representation in Kazakhstan, namely the legal profession.

Methodology. A number of methods were used, including logical analysis, formal legal, dogmatic, legal hermeneutics, deduction, induction and others.

Results. The norms regulated by the current legislation of Kazakhstan on the institution of representation were studied. This provided an opportunity to differentiate terms such as “defence”, “lawyer” and “legislative institution”, and such concepts were defined as the concepts of “lawyer”, “attorney” were defined. The foreign experience of countries in regulating the activities of a lawyer in criminal proceedings was reviewed, in particular in the USA, Great Britain, Germany, and France. This helped to conduct a comparative legal analysis of Kazakhstan’s experience with those listed above to highlight features, similarities, and differences.

Conclusions. Kazakhstan has experienced a significant decrease in criminal activity and continues to develop its legal system. However, challenges persist in areas such as access to qualified legal representation, entry into the legal profession, and organization of legal services, indicating a need for improvements based on international best practices to enhance the country's legal institutions.

Keywords: lawyer; institution of representation; problematic aspects; international practice; protecting people’s rights

Suggested citation

Abzelov A, Sabitova A, Gavrilova Y,  Smailova I, Alembayev  K. Status of a defence attorney in criminal proceedings: Comparative legal analysis of countries’ experience. Sci Herald Uzhhorod Univ Ser Phys. 2024;(56):1610-1617. DOI: 10.54919/physics/56.2024.161hd0

Download article

References

  1. Satybaldiev SE. Lawyer-defender in the Republic of Kazakhstan criminal proceedings and his procedural status. Bull Inst Legisl Leg Inform Repub Kazakh. 2020;1(59):379-383.
  2. Nurpeisova AK, Borisov AA. Problems of professional activity of a lawyer in the jury court of the Republic of Kazakhstan. In: Materials of the International Scientific and Theoretical Conference “Integration of Science and Education in the conditions of Innovative Development and Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals, dedicated to the Independence Day of the Republic of Kazakhstan” (pp. 106-108). Karaganda: Karaganda University of Kazpotrebsouz; 2023.
  3. Mushatova K. To the question of the position of the lawyer-defender in the criminal process. Bull Inst Legisl Leg Inform Repub Kazakh. 2020;1(59):247-252.
  4. Kegembaeva Zh, Zhanatuly Zh. Improving the quality of legal assistance. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Scientific and Practical Conference “Challenges in Science of Nowadays” (pp. 257-265). Washington: InterConf; 2022.
  5. Kogamov MCh. The main functions of the criminal process and their actual content in the context of protecting individual rights in criminal proceedings. In: Collection of Materials from the International Round Table “Modernization of Criminal, Criminal Procedure and Criminal Executive Legislation in the Conditions of Digital Transformation of Society” (pp. 24-27). Kosshy: Academy of Law Enforcement Bodies under the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Kazakhstan; 2022.
  6. Ablaeva EB. Interaction of the judiciary with institutions of legal assistance and mediation. Bull L.N. Gumil Eur Nat Univ Law Ser. 2022;4(141):8-20.
  7. Nurumov DD. Some issues of ensuring lawyer immunity. Cent Asian J Soc Sci Hist. 2022;3(11):61-69.
  8. Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan; 1995. https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=1005029
  9. Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan; 2014. https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=31575852
  10. Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 176-VI “On advocacy and legal assistance”; 2018. https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=33024087
  11. Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung; 1959. https://unba.org.ua/assets/uploads/legislations/pologennya/bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung.pdf
  12. The Alabama rules of professional conduct; 1990. https://www.classactionlitigation.com/legalresearch/professionalresponsibility.pdf
  13. Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz (RVG); 2004. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/rvg/BJNR078800004.html
  14. New Bar Council Standard Conditions of Contract; 2012. https://centralchambers.co.uk/new-bar-council-standard-conditions-of-contract/
  15. Courts and Legal Services Act; 1990. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/41/contents
  16. Criminal Offences; 2023. https://qamqor.gov.kz/crimestat/indicators
  17. Levin B. Criminal law exceptionalism. Virg Law Rev. 2022;108:1381.
  18. Cowan S, Munro VE. Seeking campus justice: Challenging the ‘criminal justice drift’in United Kingdom university responses to student sexual violence and misconduct. J Law Soc. 2021;48(3):308-333.
  19. Husak D. The price of criminal law skepticism: Ten functions of the criminal law. New Crim Law Rev. 2020;23(1):27-59.
  20. Willems A. The Court of Justice of the European Union’s mutual trust journey in EU criminal law: from a presumption to (room for) rebuttal. Germ Law J. 2019;20(4):468-495.
  21. Melnikoff DE, Strohminger N. The automatic influence of advocacy on lawyers and novices. Natur Hum Behav. 2020;4:1258-1264.
  22. Minow M. Do alternative justice mechanisms deserve recognition in international criminal law: Truth commissions, amnesties, and complementarity at the international criminal court. Harv Int Law J. 2019;60(1):1-46.
  23. Murray J. Prejudice-based rights in criminal procedure. Univ Pennsylv Law Rev. 2019;168(2):277-285.
  24. Davis AJ. Reimagining prosecution: A growing progressive movement. UCLA Crim Just Law Rev. 2019;3(1):2-89.
  25. Metzger PR, Hoeffel JC. Criminal (Dis) appearance. Georg Washing Law Rev. 2020;88:392-412.
  26. Shook JJ, Goodkind S, Kolivoski KM, Ballentine KL. Procedural justice and legal socialization among juvenile offenders: The role of defense attorneys. J Soc Issues. 2021;77(2):484-503.
  27. Schoultz I, Flyghed J. “We have been thrown under the bus”: Corporate versus individual defense mechanisms against transnational corporate bribery charges. J Whit Collar Corpor Crim. 2021;2(1):24-35.
  28. Green BA. Selectively disciplining advocates. Connect Law Rev. 2022;54(1):151-196.
  29. Turner JI. Remote criminal justice. Tex Tech Law Rev. 2020;53:197-271.
Make a Submission

Indexing

info@physics.uz.ua