335 / 436
GAZETTE
DECEMBER 1990
Younger Members News
Last September/October, I was
amongst a group of 22 Irish
solicitors and barristers who took
part in an exchange programme
with Russians organised by the
Youth Exchange Bureau, an
authority established under the
auspices of the National Youth
Council of Ireland. The group
comprised 16 barristers and six
solicitors (including two solicitors
from Northern Ireland).
The lawyer? exchange pro-
gramme was one of a number of
Russian/Irish exchanges organised
throughout the year including one
for journalists and one for members
of the construction industry. The
programme was intended to be a
"work shadow" exchange where
we would shadow an individual
Russian partner at his/her work for
the two week period and stay in
his/her home and in turn provide a
reciprocal scenario in Ireland. The
entire group was sent to a town in
the Russian Republic called Tver
(still Kalinin in most atlases - it
reverted to its pre 1917 revolution
name of Tver during the summer of
1990). Tver is a very old town
situate on the Volga about 100
miles north west of Moscow on the
Moscow - Leningrad railway line.
The town has a population of about
500,000 and its main industry is
textile manufacture.
It transpired that the standard of
English of most of our partners was
insufficient to enable us to pursue
a genuine work shadow pro-
gramme either in Russia or Ireland.
(Needless to say the Russian
vocabulary of the Irish group was
minimal - most people improved
on their ability to play acting
charades by the end of the trip).
The programme provided in Tver
gave us an interesting overview of
the Soviet legal system, particularly
in the area of criminal law. Most of
our partners were either admini-
strative
personnel
in
the
prokuratura (local state pro-
secutors' office), prosecution
lawyers or defence lawyers. (The
Soviets were amazed to discover
that in Ireland barristers are entirely
independent and can prosecute
and defend in different cases).
During the first week of our trip we
had a number of lecture/question
and answer sessions. Communica-
tion was made possible by means
of an interpreter. One of the more
novel features of the work
programme was the attendance at
two trials where we were afforded
simultaneous translation of the pro-
ceedings. In other words, once
anyone had spoken a sentence or
two, the flow was interrupted
whilst the subject matter was
translated for our benefit. One of
the trials involved a student
charged with the theft of car
windscreens (a far more serious
offence that than the theft of car
windscreens in Ireland as cars are
in short supply in the Soviet Union
and spare parts extremely difficult
to procure). The defendant decided
to plead guilty and to represent
himself. The court was a district
court presided over by a judge and
two lay assessors. Three interest-
ing features of Soviet criminal law
emerged from this particular case
namely: —
1. If a defendant pleads guilty to
a charge he/she cannot be
convicted on the basis of this
admission alone. There must be
independent evidence to
support the charge. We were
advised that this procedure is
now always adopted in order to
avoid the type of confession
convictions which took place
during the Stalinist period.
2. Victims of a crime have a
status in court as such (not
merely as witnesses) and may
give evidence/comment and
demonstrate how they have
been affected by the crime,
although it is unclear to what
extent the court actually takes
their views into account. In the
particular case one of the
victims had no qualms in telling
the court that he had since
replaced the windscreen stolen
with a purchase on the black
market (which action is itself
an illegal offence).
3. Alcohol is considered to be an
aggravating rather than a
mitigating element when in-
volved in the commission of an
offence. This factor is sympto-
matic of a society which places
a greater emphasis on personal
accountability than is normally
seen in many Western Euro-
pean societies.
The features referred to at 1 and
2 above are particularly interesting
in the context of celebrated cases
in this country in recent years
where there had been an admission
of guilt to a serious crime and no
evidence was put to the court as to
its commission. The court has
confined itself solely to the
sentencing of the accused. This
practice has given rise to serious
criticism as it leaves questions
relating to the crime unanswered
and grievances unremedied for the
victims and their families.
In many respects the criminal law
and criminal procedures in the
Soviet Union are quite different to
our own system. The most obvious
feature of this is that the criminal
trial does not promote an adver-
sarial system of justice as most of
the ground work has already been
dealt with at one or more formal
investigations which take place
prior to the trial.
The concept of private property
rights was introduced in Russia
effective from 1st July, 1990
although the procedures for
implementing the new laws have
not yet been expounded e.g. our
partners were unable to indicate to
us
how
a
straightforward
transaction such as the purchase of
a private dwelling would be
financed in the future.
Because there is no developed
system of private property there is
also no developed system of con-
tract or tort. The prosecutor's
office also has a role in the civil law
procedure that exists. In fact it is
quite apparent that in the Soviet
system the effectiveness of the
local administration in administer-
ing the system is, in practice, more
important than awareness and
acknowledgement of individual
legal rights as such.
For the very reason that there
has been no developed concept of
private property rights there exists
no solicitor's profession although
Notaries Public do carry out the
function of advising people on
matters such as wills and simple
3 19