Deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle  

By the verdict of the Tselinograd District Court of Akmola region dated March 20, 2018: D. not previously convicted, found guilty by Part 1 of Article 346 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code) and sentenced to 200 (two hundred) hours of Public Works.  By the court verdict D. On February 09, 2018, at about 02:00, a court decision dated June 23, 2015, having been deprived of the right to drive a vehicle for three years, was found guilty of driving a Volkswagen Golf car under the state license number 439uxa/01 in the village of Kosshy, Tselinograd district. The verdict was not considered on appeal. By the decision of the Tselinograd District Court of Akmola region dated March 20, 2018 D. Part 1 of Article 346 of the criminal code imposed an additional penalty of deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for three years and involved in 200 (two hundred) hours of public work. In the protest of the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan, proving the guilt of D. for the specified criminal offense and the differentiation of his actions, as well as without challenging the main punishment assigned to him, indicating that the court of first instance did not unreasonably assign him an additional penalty of deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle with mandatory assignment provided for in Part 1 of Article 346 of the criminal code, changing the court's verdict and assigning him an additional penalty of deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for three years, he also requested the cancellation of the decision of the Tselinograd District Court of Akmola region dated March 20, 2018. The fact that D. committed the criminal offense described in the sentence is confirmed by the evidence that was thoroughly studied and objectively evaluated in the main trial. The court gave a reasonable legal assessment of the actions of D. and correctly differentiated it by Part 1 of Article 346 of the criminal code.

In the protest, the proof of his guilt in a criminal offense and the differentiation of his actions were not disputed. At the same time, the motivation of the protest on the illegal release of D. By the court from the additional punishment subject to mandatory assignment provided for by the criminal law is justified. Deprivation of the right to hold a certain position or engage in certain activities in accordance with the requirements of Part 1 of Article 50 of the criminal code consists in a ban on holding certain positions in the civil service, local self-government bodies, or engaging in certain professional or other activities, including driving vehicles. D. the sanction of Part 1 of Article 346 of the criminal code, recognized as guilty, provides for a mandatory additional penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to three years. However, the court, misusing the criminal law, did not impose on the convicted D. This mandatory additional punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle, and did not justify this in the sentence from the point of view of the law. Therefore, the court verdict against D. should be changed, imposing on him an additional penalty, mandatory for three years of deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle, provided for in Part 1 of Article 346 of the criminal code.

At the same time, in accordance with the requirements of Part 6 of Article 395 of the criminal code, not taking into account the inadmissibility of making any changes to the sentence after its disclosure, the court, in its resolution of March 20, 2018, guided by Article 476 of the criminal code, made an erroneous conclusion about the need to correct the error made in the sentence, in fact amended the sentence part and assigned to convicted D. a mandatory additional sentence of deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for three years, provided for in Part 1 of Article 346 of the criminal code. This decision of the court of first instance is illegal, since making such changes to the court's verdict is not provided for at all by articles 476-478 of the CPC, and these articles, however, only regulate the resolution of issues related to the execution of court sentences that have entered into legal force. Therefore, this resolution is subject to cancellation. The judicial board for criminal cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan changed the verdict of the court of first instance against the convicted D., imposing an additional sentence of deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for 3 years. The decision of the court of first instance dated March 20, 2018, leaving the rest of the sentence unchanged, satisfied the protest of the prosecutor general of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information,  please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases