Case law on the admissibility of evidence collected in violation of the rules of jurisdiction

The article is devoted to the analysis of current case law on the issue of admissibility of evidence collected in violation of the rules of jurisdiction. The author outlines the concept of jurisdiction and considers the doctrinal views on its types (features), and emphasises the lack of unity of vision of the institute of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings among scholars. The author provides and analyses the rulings of the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court which express legal positions on the recognition of such evidence as admissible. As it has been found out, two approaches to this issue can be distinguished: the old one, which is that evidence collected in violation of the requirements of jurisdiction is inadmissible, and the new one, which provides for its admissibility. The author highlights some arguments regarding the validity of using one or the other approach, and notes that the compliance of the new view of the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court on the admissibility of evidence collected in violation of the requirements of jurisdiction with the principle of legality is in question. After analysing twenty verdicts of the first instance courts and ten decisions of the second instance courts, it was found that the majority of both local and appellate courts adhere to the position on the admissibility of such evidence, while it should be noted that there are a number of court decisions concluding that evidence collected in violation of jurisdiction is inadmissible. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has actually granted the possibility to deviate from the criminal procedural form established by the current legislation, the author states that it is important to observe the principle of legality in criminal proceedings, and in case of non-compliance with the criminal procedural order, such non-compliance should not be unreasonable or violating human rights, and should be assessed in terms of the ratio of its severity and fulfilment of the tasks of criminal proceedings. At the same time, the author emphasises the fallacy of such a vision due to its inconsistency with current legislation.