The Supreme Court clarified who will be punished for attacking police officers or inspectors

A draft resolution on this topic was discussed at the Plenum of the Supreme Court in mid-April. By the beginning of June, the work was completed, the document was published on June 1. In its opening lines, it states that the need to analyze and clarify the case law in such cases prompted “questions raised by the courts” and the need to ensure “uniform application” throughout the country of the relevant articles of the Criminal Code. Prior to this, by the way, the courts had to be guided by the clarifications of the Plenum of the USSR Supreme Court of 1989.

The document now adopted refers to three articles of the Criminal Code, but we will focus on only two related to violent crimes.

Article 317 of the Criminal Code promises for “encroachment on the life of a law enforcement officer, a military man, as well as their loved ones” imprisonment for a term of 12 to 20 years or life imprisonment. This is one of those five articles of the Criminal Code, which still speaks of capital punishment – however, the death penalty has not been passed in Russia for almost 30 years, the moratorium of the Constitutional Court on this matter continues to operate.

Article 318 for the use of violence that is not dangerous to life or health “against a representative of the authorities or his relatives” and for the threat of using violence offers the court the choice of such punishments: a fine of up to 200 thousand rubles, forced labor for up to five years, imprisonment for up to five years. If the violence was dangerous to life or health – no alternative up to 10 years in prison.

It makes sense to understand, at least in the most general terms, for what it can “fly in” here – if only because the percentage of acquittals under these articles is lower than under most other articles of the Criminal Code. According to the statistics of the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court, 26, 21 and 21 people were convicted under 317 in the last three years, respectively, and here the dynamics is rather positive, because in 2017-2019 the number of convictions ranged from 38 to 42. But 318 -I is much more “productive”: in 2020, the number of convicts under the first, easy part of it was 5687 people, in 2021 – 6912, in 2022 – 7638. And according to the second, where we are talking about causing grievous bodily harm – 600, 613 and 623 respectively…

So, the Supreme Court explains: since Article 317 protects law enforcement officers, military personnel and their loved ones, and Article 318 protects government officials and their loved ones (specifying in the footnote that we are talking about law enforcement or regulatory officers), the judge must first find out the employee or official of which particular law enforcement or regulatory body the victim is, where he served in the military, what powers he had.

At the same time, “it should be borne in mind” that the prosecutor’s office, the Investigative Committee, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSB, the Federal Penitentiary Service, and the military police belong to law enforcement agencies in Russia, and this is far from a complete list. And to the military – and directly the military, subordinate to the Ministry of Defense, and employees of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, and parts of the Russian Guard, and the border troops of the FSB, and other categories of people with shoulder straps. The regulatory authorities include the Federal Tax Service, and Rosprirodnadzor, and Rospozharnadzor, and Roszdravnadzor, and Rospotrebnadzor, and Rostekhnadzor, that is, the inspector who came to you from these structures with an inspection is also.

With regard to article 317 of the Criminal Code (where it is about encroachment on life), the resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces specifically stipulates that “law enforcement officials” can also include officials who are not actually law enforcement officers, but “are endowed with the authority to protect public order and ensure public security (for example, by carrying out guard or patrol duty on the streets and in other public places; maintaining order during demonstrations, rallies, sports competitions, entertainment and other mass events, in the aftermath of accidents, public and natural disasters; preventing or suppressing unlawful acts).

And what about “relatives”? As explained in the decision of the plenum of the Armed Forces, these should be considered, firstly, close relatives (in criminal law, this is a spouse, parents, children, adoptive parents, adopted children, siblings, grandfather, grandmother, grandchildren). And secondly – “other persons who are related to them” arbitrarily distant – cousins ​​and second cousins, aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces. And, finally, those who are “in property” (that is, relatives of the spouse), and “persons whose life, health and well-being are obviously dear to the victim by virtue of established personal relationships.” The last clause suggests that, among others, both a lover (lover) and a friend (girlfriend) can fall into this category.

These articles of the Criminal Code relate to situations where the attempted murder or murder of a law enforcement officer, military serviceman or persons close to them, violence against them or the threat of violence is aimed at obstructing “lawful” activities to protect public order or security, “or for the motive of revenge for such activities “. That is, if the wife of a police officer or an FSB officer was killed or beaten, but for the purpose of robbing, or out of personal hostility, they will be judged under a different article of the Criminal Code, not the one that protects persons “on duty”.

So, it is necessary to find out whether the victim was “on execution”. The problem is that representatives of the authorities of different categories do not always wear uniforms, caps, or have dog tags. Yes, and the police are required by law to respond to citizens’ appeals about an ongoing offense and in their free time from service hours. And is it possible in all cases to immediately determine how legal the actions of a law enforcement officer or controller are?

Violence that is not dangerous to life and health can be recognized as any action that caused physical pain (even minimal force) to a representative of the authorities, clarifies the Armed Forces: tying hands, using handcuffs, leaving them in a closed room; actions that “caused harm to his health” such as abrasions, cut wounds, and hematomas most often appearing in sentences. And the threat of causing harm to health can be considered “statements or other actions of a person indicating his intention to use any physical violence against the victim, when such a threat was perceived by the victim as real.” Violence dangerous to life or health is one that caused severe or moderate harm, or light, “caused a short-term health disorder or a slight permanent loss of general ability to work.”