Violation of traffic rules when driving a vehicle, which caused the death of a person by negligence

By the verdict of the Ural City Court of the West Kazakhstan region dated September 21, 2017, N., who had no previous criminal record, was sentenced under part 3 of Article 345 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code) to 5 years in prison, with deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for up to 5 years, with serving his sentence in an institution of the minimum security. Recovered from convict N. in favor of the victims: S. for compensation of moral damage, the amount of 8,000,000 tenge, A. - in the amount of 2,000,000 tenge, U. - expenses for the services of a lawyer in the amount of 100,000 tenge. Victim S. was recognized as having the right to satisfy a civil claim for recovery of material damage and the issue of its size was referred to the court for consideration in civil proceedings. 350,833 tenge were recovered from N. to the state income to reimburse the costs of inpatient treatment of victim A. in the State State Unitary Enterprise for the City Multidisciplinary Hospital, procedural costs in the amount of 83,992 tenge, as well as the state duty in the amount of 11,658 tenge. By the verdict of the court of N. He was found guilty of driving a Hyundai Tucson car, registration number 086 AMA/06, along Kambar Batyr Street, Uralsk, at about 2:30 p.m. on July 22, 2017, grossly violating the requirements of paragraphs 9.9. and 10.1 of the Traffic Regulations (hereinafter - SDA), hitting pedestrians Z. and S., as a result of which Z. suffered injuries. She died at the scene of a traffic accident, and A. suffered moderate damage to her health.

By a decision of the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the West Kazakhstan Regional Court dated October 25, 2017, the court's verdict against N. remained unchanged. The submission of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, introduced in accordance with paragraph 2) of Part 3 of Article 484 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), raises the issue of reviewing judicial acts in the case due to the incorrect imposition of punishment. The qualifying feature of a criminal offense is unreasonably recognized as an aggravating circumstance in the case. At the same time, N.'s remorse the positive characteristics of the place of residence and work, the absence of a criminal record were not recognized by the court as mitigating circumstances. These errors were made by the court in connection with violation of the requirements of paragraph 4 of the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 4 dated June 25, 2015 "On certain issues of criminal punishment". In the circumstances described, taking into account the requirements of paragraph 1) of part 2 of Article 55 of the Criminal Code, the maximum permissible punishment that can be imposed on N. under part 3 of Article 345 of the Criminal Code is imprisonment for up to 2 years and 6 months. Considers it necessary to consider the petition of the defender U. for a review of the judicial acts held in the case due to the violation of uniformity in the interpretation and application of the norms of law by the courts. The fact that N. committed violations of traffic rules while driving a vehicle, which negligently resulted in the death of a person provided for in part 3 of Article 345 of the Criminal Code, has been proven by the materials of the criminal case, and is also not disputed in the defense attorney's petition. According to article 24 of the CPC, the court is obliged to take all measures provided by law for a comprehensive, complete and objective investigation of the circumstances necessary and sufficient for the proper resolution of the case.

Violation of traffic rules when driving a vehicle, which caused the death of a person by negligence

The circumstances of the case are subject to clarification, both incriminating and justifying the defendant, as well as mitigating and aggravating their responsibility and punishment. The criminal offense under part 3 of Article 345 of the Criminal Code, of which N. was found guilty, is punishable by imprisonment for up to 5 years and is classified as crimes of minor gravity. According to part 2 of Article 54 of the Criminal Code, if the circumstance specified in part one of this Article is provided for by the relevant article of the Special Part of this Code as a sign of a criminal offense, it cannot be re-considered as a circumstance aggravating responsibility and punishment. Grave consequences in the form of the negligent death of the victim in the disposition of part 3 of Article 345 of the Criminal Code are interpreted as one of the qualifying signs of a criminal offense. Also, the indictment does not indicate the presence of aggravating circumstances in the case. The court, considering N.'s situation, was forced to recognize the infliction of grave consequences as an aggravating circumstance. Thus, the infliction of grave consequences in the form of death was unreasonably recognized by the court in the case as an aggravating circumstance, which is illegal and subject to exclusion. Meanwhile, the positive characteristics of N. objectively established in court, both at his place of residence and at his last place of work, and the absence of a criminal record were not recognized by the court as mitigating circumstances. Moreover, the recognition of N. his guilt and sincere repentance for what he had done, recorded in the indictment as a circumstance mitigating criminal liability and punishment, was not taken into account by the court when sentencing him. In accordance with paragraph 1 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of June 25, 2015 No. 4 "On certain issues of sentencing", courts should strictly observe the general rules for sentencing prescribed in Article 52 of the Criminal Code, take into account the severity of the criminal offense, the presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances and punishment, grounds for the appointment of a more lenient penalties than are prescribed for this criminal offense. It follows from paragraph 5 of the above-mentioned normative resolution that the court, when imposing punishment, must necessarily indicate in the verdict mitigating and aggravating circumstances of responsibility and punishment. Contrary to these requirements of the law, when sentencing N., the court did not recognize sincere repentance, the fact that he had not previously been convicted, positive characteristics at his place of residence and work as mitigating criminal liability and punishment, and unreasonably indicated in the verdict that there were none. In view of the above, the board considers it necessary to recognize, in accordance with paragraph 11) of part 1 of Article 53, part 2 of Article 53 of the Criminal Code, sincere repentance, lack of criminal record, positive characteristics at the place of residence and work as mitigating criminal liability and punishment of N. There are no aggravating circumstances in the case.  In accordance with paragraph 1 of part 2 of Article 55 of the Criminal Code, in the presence of a mitigating circumstance that is not provided for as a sign of a committed crime, and in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the term or amount of punishment may not exceed half of the maximum term or amount of the most severe type of punishment provided for in the relevant article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code. Based on the above, the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court changed the judicial acts of the local courts in respect of N. and she excluded from the verdict the recognition by the court as a circumstance aggravating criminal liability and punishment of N., causing serious consequences by a criminal offense. Circumstances were recognized in the case in accordance with paragraph 11) of part 1 of Article 53, part 2 of Article 53 of the Criminal Code as mitigating criminal liability and punishment: sincere repentance, lack of previous criminal record, positive characteristics at the place of residence and work. With the application of paragraph 1) of part 2 of Article 55 of the Criminal Code, the term of the appointed The penalty was reduced to 2 years and 6 months in prison, with the right to drive a vehicle suspended for 5 years. The rest of the judicial acts remained unchanged. The submission of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan is satisfied. 

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