Balance of Public and Private Interests in Criminal Proceedings: Issues of Priority

ф

®

IntroductionRelevance of the Research

The issue of public and private balance in modern criminal justice is particularly important, as any imbalance can affect the fate of an individual and, in some cases, set precedents which can provoke the collapse of entire state legal systems. This urgency stems from the need to harmonize two key aspects: protecting society from crime and ensuring the basic rights of those involved in criminal proceedings, as noted by Malby [1]. The significance of this study is enhanced by changes in criminal law and enforcement practices.

Modern legal systems, whether civil or common law, are constantly confronted with the challenge of finding an optimal balance between maintaining public order, protecting state sovereignty and guaranteeing individual freedoms and human rights. This task is especially important considering the high responsibility and the risk of negative consequences for all participants in criminal cases, in particular those whose rights are restricted in the course of criminal proceedings. From the point of view of public authorities, strict adherence to the principles of criminal law is required — not only within their own legal systems but also with respect to the basic principles of international law concerning respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms.

Problem Statement

The central problem lies in identifying an effective mechanism for reconciling public and private interests in investigating and sentencing criminal cases. To examine and study this mechanism from multiple perspectives, it is intended to analyze it based on research conducted by scholars representing diverse legal systems, specifically member states of the European Union. Current legal arrangements often do not adequately strike the necessary balance, leading to risks of excessive restriction of personal freedom or compromise of public safety, as noted in Wild’s analysis [3].

One major obstacle is the lack of clear criteria for determining when and how to prioritize one interest over another. This uncertainty often leads to inconsistent application of the law and different outcomes in similar cases.

Purpose of the Study

The main objective of this study is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the mechanisms that maintain the balance between public and private interests in criminal proceedings during investigations and decision-making processes against the backdrop of compliance with human rights. In addition, the study explores the prioritization of interests in different situations and offers recommendations for improving the legal regulation of the issue un- der consideration, building on the findings of recent research [4].

Theoretical Basis

The study is based on a systematic approach to examining the balance of private and public interests in criminal proceedings. This method allows the interaction between public and private interests to be viewed as a single system, as demonstrated by Audrito et al. [6]. An analysis of national and international practices helps identify the most effective tools for maintaining this balance.

The fundamental premise is that criminal justice should not merely punish perpetrators, but also protect the rights of all participants in the process, regardless of their status or affiliation with a particular party. This dual objective requires a delicate balance between competing interests.

Research MethodsTheoretical Methods

The study includes comparative legal methodology, systemic analysis, deduction and induction. Emphasis is placed on the analysis of legal doctrine with a view to creating a conceptual framework and methodological basis for research, as demonstrated by Schuster [8]. The systematic analysis focuses on legal doctrines of scholars from different countries, including members of the European Union, as well as nations outside supra-national unions but participating in universal and regional international organizations.

Theoretical analysis includes a review of national and international regulations, doctrinal works and scientific publications to understand the fundamental principles governing the balance of interests in criminal justice.

Empirical Methods

Empirical research is founded on an analysis of case law, focusing primarily on ECHR rulings, statistics and specific cases. This approach provides an objective understanding of how interests are balanced in the real world and highlights existing difficulties, as noted by Farber et al. [5].

The empirical study covers court judgments, mainly at the international level, as their reasoning is based on the application of complex norms of international law relating to human rights Statistical data on criminal cases and appeals against previous decisions, along with specific examples of balancing law enforcement and judicial practice, are included.

Main ResultsKey Provisions

Public interests in criminal proceedings include measures designed to protect society from criminal offences, preserve law and order, and prevent crime. However, there exists a larger public interest — protecting the state’s legal system as a whole. Specifically, internal systemic stability and independence from external pressure of the entire legal structure that protects society from crime. This conclusion diverges from Malby’s proposed construction of supra-state control over human rights observance in criminal proceedings [1]. He argues that control exercised by an interstate body would be more effective in terms of human rights protection, though he overlooks a very significant point — the international control over a nation’s internal legal system is reminiscent of the public interests, whereas a state’s aspiration for autonomy in making and enforcing decisions (without accounting for suprastate controllers) corresponds to private ones. This situation closely mirrors competition between public and private interests in any legal regulation, except here the place of “private” is occupied by independent states, and the place of “public” by international organizations or, in Malby’s case, supra-state structures.

Private interests include protection of personal rights and freedoms of participants, guaranteeing the right to defense, respecting the presumption of innocence, and providing fair trials, as discussed by Lee et al. [3]. However, in these works, private interests typically refer to those of one side of the proceeding. Usually, the weaker side — the perpetrator — or solely the victim’s side [5]. But private interests should be viewed comprehensively. Anthony Duff suggests equating any infringement on private interests with encroaching on public ones whenever a crime occurs [2]. Yet, here Malby appears justified, arguing that this is too extreme. His recommendation to supplement Duff’s theory with an emphasis on private interests arises due to Duff’s assertion that any violation of private interests constitutes a violation of public ones. Thus, Malby attempts to bring the preference mechanism in criminal proceedings closer to optimal balance. Nonetheless, his suggested mechanism itself represents an extreme position. It is akin to placing disproportionate weight on one scale of Lady Justice’s scales (arguments of one side of the criminal proceeding), while Malby proposes counterbalancing it with forceful supra-state intervention favoring human rights. Herein, however, he forgets that on the opposing side, even under the guise of public interests, lie equally vital human rights requiring suprastate protection — those defending every person from crime.

But the international control mechanism proposed by Stephen Malby as a means of ensuring the balance of private and public interests in criminal proceedings remains contentious. Any governmental entity acting as a representative of a rule-of-law society consistently strives to defend its citizens from criminal assault. Simultaneously, each state, even within supra-state entities, regulates relationships between its citizens and government bodies taking into account internal cultural, religious, and historical factors — as mentioned by Malby [1]. However, greater focus is placed on limiting a state’s autonomy in human rights protection altogether, transferring primary authority to supra-state institutions. If returning to the notion of public interests outlined above, it follows that Malby’s proposed control structure deprives participating states of their essence and even sovereignty, undermining the very existence of nation-states — specifically, their own legal systems used to protect all members of society.

New Elements of Research

The study identifies key factors affecting maintenance of interest balance in criminal proceedings. Specifically, it emphasizes the roles of human rights and their place in any country’s legal system. Another factor highlighted is the independence of sovereign states in seeking balance between private and public interests in criminal proceedings. Developed are evaluation criteria for proportionality of participant rights limitations in cases touching on personal rights, particularly in sensitive matters. Concrete measures to improve procedural guarantees are proposed based on recent legal scholarship [1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7].

DiscussionTheoretical Importance

This research contributes to advancing criminal procedure theory by clarifying the concept of interest balance and formulating novel approaches to understanding priorities in criminal proceedings, supported by existing scientific literature [1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7]. The factor of individual state sovereignty and its legal system in ensuring human rights observance and protecting society from crime is highlighted. The findings obtained can be employed in further academic explorations.

Practical Importance

Findings of this study can be implemented in daily law enforcement practice, contributing to improved criminal procedure legislation and serving as grounds for developing recommendations for judges and investigators, as indicated in recent sources [6; 7].

Conclusions

Key findings confirm that the balance of public and private interests represents a dynamic process demanding continual adaptation to changing circumstances. Each state judicial system plays a pivotal role in ensuring this balance by simultaneously considering the interests of society and individual interests. The prominent role assigned to international organizations and supra-state entities in guaranteeing private interests is noteworthy.

It is evident that when seeking a balance between private and public interests in criminal proceedings, it is necessary to identify the mechanism through which this balance is achieved. The research has shown that in each specific situation, considered in each specific jurisdiction, the mechanism for ensuring the balance of interests is always individual. In some cases, it is realized through procedural guarantees for each party in the criminal process, as in the jurisdictions of the continental legal family, while in others, it relies on the principles of established traditions, as in the Anglo-Saxon legal family.

Additionally, a distinctive feature of the balance between private and public interests is its dynamism. The balance is not in a static state but rather tends to tilt towards one side. This tendency is particularly pronounced when external pressure is exerted on it. Alternatively, such a tendency may manifest due to the imperfection of the internal legal system, which is inherently biased towards one side (usually towards public interests, as most state legal systems are oriented towards protecting society from crimes). This feature of the balance between private and public interests appears to be a property expressed in its ability to disproportionately shift to one side or the other depending on the influence of both international norms and decisions of supranational law enforcement structures, as well as the internal peculiarities of state legal systems.

For an effective balance of private and public interests in the consideration of cases in courts of any jurisdiction, a number of conditions must be met. The primary condition is the existence of an independent, autonomous, culturally rooted, and functioning legal system in each individual state.

It has been established that excessive control by supranational structures in the legal enforcement system is unacceptable, especial- ly when this control protects only one party or only certain values that may be alien to the cultural tradition of a particular state.

It is proposed to focus on one’s own established legal traditions but through the lens of evaluating them for compliance with universally accepted international standards. At the same time, external supranational control should be considered excessive. However, this control should not be completely abolished; it should serve as a guideline when making each individual decision within the framework of criminal proceedings, and, if necessary, have an effective mechanism for reacting to an obvious violation of such values.

In addition, it is recommended:

• —    to approach the application of procedural means of protection for all participants in the criminal process comprehensively, focusing on universally recognized standards of international guarantees of human rights and freedoms, while adhering to internal legal norms that take into account the cultural peculiarities of the society in which they are applied;

• —    to apply objective criteria for the justification of restrictions on the rights of any participant in the criminal process (regardless of which side represents his interests), taking into account his private interests, while recognizing that public interests always and unconditionally encompass the private interests of each member of society;

• —    to improve the control mechanisms of supranational judicial authorities of each individual state entity to support a balanced approach to protecting public interests through the lens of protecting each citizen from crime, but with a focus on the cultural peculiarities of the state and traditions in its legal system.