On the Significance of a State Prosecutor’s Opinion Regarding Punishment for the Criminal Court

The author examines the situation connected with the role of the public prosecutor at the stage of court inquiry. One of the significant circumstances underlining the special role of a prosecutor in court is granting them the right to administer charges. The legal position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is that a full or partial withdrawal of charges by the public prosecutor during the court inquiry, as well as their mitigation, predetermine that the court’s decision will be in accordance with the position of the public prosecutor. The same cannot be said for taking into account the opinion of the public prosecutor on the imposed punishment. The author analyzes the court practice according to which the courts state that, when making decisions, they are not bound by the opinion of the public prosecutor who substantiated a less severe punishment, and this opinion is taken into consideration alongside other circumstances. The author concludes that such a dual situation when the reasoned opinion of the prosecutor is obligatory for the court in one situation, but not in the other one, is inadmissible. It gives rise to a paradox where the accusatory position of the state, characterized by unity and indivisibility (“find guilty of the crime and impose a punishment”), is in fact artificially broken into two parts: find guilty of a crime, and impose a punishment. Besides, the substantiated milder position of the prosecutor regarding the qualification of the charges (or their withdrawal) is unquestionably admitted by the court, while a substantiated milder punishment is rejected.