Judicial Practice as a Source of Criminal Law Policy in the Sphere of Responsibility for Unfinished Criminal Activity

This article explores the role of judicial practice, particularly the legal positions of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, in shaping criminal law policy regarding unfinished criminal activity. The author analyzes a series of rulings by the Criminal Court of Cassation issued after 2018, which address various aspects of qualifying incomplete crimes.The paper examines key issues that courts face when qualifying acts related to unfinished criminal activity. These include distinguishing between completed and uncompleted attempts, differentiating attempts from completed crimes, and establishing the subjective aspect of the crime, particularly the content of the person’s intent.The author emphasizes that the Criminal Court of Cassation, in its decisions, establishes important interrelations between the institute of unfinished crime and other institutes of the General Part of the Criminal Code. Specifically, it addresses issues of qualifying criminal offenses committed in complicity, by insane persons, as well as problems of qualifying repeated offenses and multiple crimes in the context of unfinished criminal activity.The article underscores the importance of judicial practice as a source of criminal law policy. The legal positions of the Supreme Court not only form requests for further resolution of problematic issues but also create conditions for ensuring the unity of judicial practice. This, according to the author, contributes to increasing the effectiveness of criminal law policy as a whole.The study demonstrates that the analysis of judicial practice allows for identifying main trends and problems in the field of qualifying unfinished criminal activity. This, in turn, can serve as a basis for further improvement of legislation and law enforcement practice in this area of criminal law.The research highlights the complex nature of unfinished criminal activity and the need for a nuanced approach in its legal interpretation. It also emphasizes the dynamic nature of criminal law policy, which evolves through the interaction between legislative norms and their practical application by the courts.