| Abstract [eng] |
Research problem In the present doctoral dissertation, the problematic issues of the institute of multiple offences are analysed. Multiple offences as an institute of criminal law is characterised as involving the problems of both the qualification of criminal offences and the individualisation of criminal liability. The problems of the qualification of criminal offences are relevant, when questions of the separation of single criminal acts from multiple offences are dealt with. When the existence of multiple offences is established, it is necessary to move on to the consideration of another problem—the individualisation of criminal liability. The individualisation of criminal liability depends on the form of multiple offences. Therefore, for the formation of a uniform case-law, homogeneous and clear criteria for the differentiation of the forms of multiple offences and their separation form each other are essential. When the forms of multiple offences are defined, it is necessary to evaluate their impact on the criminal liability of the person who committed the criminal act. Of course, the key influence on criminal liability manifests through the rules of the combination of sentences; however, one should not forget other topical issues (such as sentence suspension, release from a custodial sentence on parole and the replacement of the term not served of the custodial sentence with a more lenient penalty, statute of limitations of a judgement of conviction, etc.) the solution of which in one way or another depends on the existence of multiple offences. Moreover, sometimes it is necessary to deal with the problems of the separation of multiple offences from other similar institutes of criminal law (repeat offence, competition between the norms of criminal law). Therefore, a number of such issues constitute the problem of the present research. The implementation of the principle of legal justice depends on appropriate and unvaried solution of these issues. Topicality, originality and significance of the research Multiple offences is a rather frequent phenomenon in the Lithuanian case-law; often persons are judged for several rather than single criminal acts. However, the criminal law jurisprudence still lacks a uniform attitude towards the issues regarding multiple offences. First, there exist different definitions of the notion of multiple offences itself, different forms of multiple offences are distinguished and their interpretations change, the criteria for the separation of single criminal acts from multiple offences vary (they often depend on the type of the criminal act committed). Special attention should be paid to the process of the individualisation of criminal liability in cases of multiple offences. In the case-law, the fact that prosecutors more and more often lodge appeals against the decisions of lower instances about improper combination of sentences is observed. In the case-law, the process of the combination of sentences has become ‘forgotten’, as often sentences are combined only formally (by adding 3–6 months of imprisonment) without any motivations regarding the choice of the additional sentence imposed. Moreover, after the entering into force of the new Criminal Code on 1 May 2003, due to the changes in case-law and the entrenchment of new ideas in the criminal law jurisprudence, it became crucial to revise the old and well-established provisions regarding multiple offences. Thus, even if the issues of multiple offences have been analysed for a rather long time, in the present dissertation, a new approach of the author as well as of other researchers to the institute of multiple offences is presented together with general considerations (and critical evaluations) on the newly developing case-law. Furthermore, with reference to the fact that the majority of the issues regarding multiple offences (except for the imposition of sentences) are not regulated by the Criminal Code and the decision-making is left for the case-law and the criminal law jurisprudence, the present paper may have great practical significance for the constantly changing and developing Lithuanian case-law in terms of the peculiarities of multiple offences. The aim and the tasks of the research The aim of the present doctoral dissertation is to develop a uniform attitude (corresponding to the needs of the theory of criminal law and the relevant case-law) towards the institute of multiple offences and the solution of problems related to it by generalising the experience and achievements of science and case-law. The tasks of the doctoral dissertation: 1) to define the notion of the institute of multiple offences and its elements by separating it from other similar institutes of criminal law (repeat offence, competition between the norms of criminal law); 2) to develop uniform (by generalising and concretising the existing ones or by suggesting new ones) criteria for the separation of single criminal acts from multiple offences; 3) to review the existing variety of the forms of multiple offences found in the criminal law jurisprudence and distinguish the ones which would correspond to the needs of the Lithuanian case-law as well as define them by distinguishing and describing their characteristics and developing clear and uniform criteria for their separation form each other; 4) to identify the key problems related to the influence of multiple offences on the individualisation of criminal liability as well as to suggest the most appropriate ways of solving these problems; 5) to provide suggestions for the legislator and the courts regarding the development of the institute of multiple offences and the ways of solving the problems related to it. Propositions to be defended 1) Multiple offences must be related not to the fact of committing several criminal acts but to the legal evaluation of this fact—prosecution for committing several criminal acts. 2) Repeat offence should not be considered as an independent form of multiple offences and should be evaluated from the perspective of the perpetrator’s personality. 3) In case-law, the separation of single criminal acts from multiple offences is often casuistic (depends on a particular category of cases), having no clear and well-established criteria and thus violating the principle of legal justice. 4) The key attributes of single criminal acts are a violation of a direct value or the whole of values protected under a specific norm of the Criminal Code as well as a united content of guilt. 5) The case-law of the recent years, which broadens the perception of the ideal coincidence of criminal acts, forms an incoherent and exceptions-based case-law. 6) In the cases of multiple offences, the rules for sentence imposition restrict the freedom of courts and disturb the appropriate individualisation of sentences; therefore, it is crucial to improve the laws. 7) In case-law, the process of the combination of sentences is ‘forgotten’ and often does not properly reflect the gravity of all the criminal acts committed; therefore, changes in laws orienting courts towards the case-law appropriate from the perspective of criminal policy are a must. Research methodology For the present doctoral dissertation, various methods of scientific research were applied: logical, comparative, historical, linguistic, systemic, method of criticism, document analysis, etc. Firstly, the logical method and the method of criticism were rather widely applied in the present dissertation. The logical method was applied for making generalisations and conclusions aiming at the development of the institute of multiple offences. The method of criticism was also applied: the author criticised case-law, opinions of scholars, the lack of argumentation for such opinions, etc. The logical method and the method of criticism allowed making the final conclusions and forming suggestions regarding the changes of law and the development of case-law. A lot of attention was paid to the method of comparative analysis. It was applied for the comparison of scientific conceptions and different opinions of scholars. In order to gain experience, the laws and case-law of different foreign countries were analysed and compared. The application of the historical method allowed revealing the drawbacks of the former laws and case-law (under the Criminal Code of 1961) as well as reviewing the origin of the institute of multiple offences and the history of certain terms. The linguistic method was applied for the analysis of the denominations of the forms of multiple offences (ideal and real coincidence of criminal acts) and the consideration of their ability to convey the actual meaning. A different variant of these terms, which linguistically better corresponds to the meaning of the forms of multiple offences, was suggested. For the present research, the systemic method was applied as well. It allowed revealing the structure of the institute of multiple offences, its elements, their interrelation and the place in the system of the bases for criminal liability. By applying this method, the drawbacks of certain notions as well as the use of excessive elements were identified. The main method applied for the research was the method of document analysis. As even the case-law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania contains rather numerous incongruities and contradictions, namely the rulings, decisions and summary reviews of the case-law of this court passed during the term of the Criminal Codes of 1961 as well as of 2003 being in force were chosen as the key source. However, the scope of analysis was not limited to the case-law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, the Vilnius and Panevežys Regional Courts as well as the District Court of Šiauliai Region was analysed. Structure and review of the doctoral dissertation, main conclusions The dissertation is c. |
