Court annulled the verdict in the case of beating in Lviv region because the expert independently collected materials for the examination

In the ruling in case No. 455/906/22 dated May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court, sitting as the Criminal Cassation Court, considered the admissibility of the forensic medical examination conclusion, during the preparation of which the expert independently obtained the victim's medical documentation.

The practical significance of this decision lies in confirming the procedural prohibition for experts to independently collect materials necessary for conducting an examination. The Supreme Court essentially emphasized that compliance with the procedure for obtaining initial data for expert research is a mandatory condition for the admissibility of such evidence.

Circumstances of the case

The local court found the accused guilty of committing a criminal offense under Part One of Article 122 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The court established that during a conflict arising from suddenly emerged hostile relations, the accused struck the victim with a fist in the eye, causing him to fall to the ground, after which he struck him several more times with a stick on the torso and back. As a result, the victim sustained minor bodily injuries as well as injuries of moderate severity.

According to the court's verdict, the person was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with suspension of the sentence and probation. The civil claim of the victim was partially satisfied, and 40,000 UAH was awarded for moral damages.

The appellate court left the verdict unchanged.

In the cassation appeal, the defense argued that the forensic medical examination conclusion was inadmissible evidence because the expert used medical documentation obtained independently, without proper procedural formalities and without providing it to the investigator or the victim.

Position of the Supreme Court

In fact, the forensic medical examination conclusion was one of the key pieces of evidence to establish the nature and degree of severity of the victim's bodily injuries.

The Supreme Court indicated that according to Part 1 of Article 86 of the Criminal Procedure Code, evidence is recognized as admissible if it is obtained in the manner prescribed by this Code.

At the same time, as seen from the court session journal and its technical record, to clarify the circumstances and grounds for conducting the expert examination, at the request of the defense, the expert was questioned during the court session and stated that he independently obtained the medical history, while neither the investigator nor the victim provided the medical documentation for the examination.

The court emphasized the direct legislative restrictions on the powers of the expert.

The Supreme Court noted that the lower courts did not take into account that according to Part 4 of Article 69 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the expert has no right to independently collect materials for the examination. The expert may refuse to give a conclusion if the materials provided are insufficient to fulfill his duties. The refusal must be reasoned.

The Court also stated that the conclusion must be based on information that the expert directly perceived or that became known to him during the study of materials provided for the examination.

The expert gives the conclusion on his own behalf and bears personal responsibility for it.

Separately, the Supreme Court referred to the Law of Ukraine "On Forensic Examination."

The court decided that according to paragraph 1 of part 3 of article 14 of the Law of Ukraine "On Forensic Examination," a forensic expert cannot independently collect materials subject to examination or independently select initial data for conducting a forensic examination.

The cassation court emphasized that the expert must use only those materials provided to him in the manner prescribed by law.

The Supreme Court pointed out that ignoring this, the local court, with which the appellate court unjustifiably agreed, did not consider that the legislative provisions contain a direct prohibition on the expert independently obtaining any documents/information/materials for the examination and oblige him to use only those data provided in the prescribed manner.

The court concluded that such violations are significant breaches of the requirements of the criminal procedural law.

Based on the above, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, annulled the verdict of the local court and the ruling of the appellate court, and appointed a new trial in the court of first instance.

Thus, this legal position of the Court is that if a forensic medical examination is conducted based on documents that the expert obtained independently, such evidence may be recognized as inadmissible.

However, the Supreme Court did not recognize the examination as inadmissible finally, but annulled the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial. The expert's use of independently obtained documents calls into question the admissibility of the expert's conclusion.

Also read in the article of  the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper" about another legal position of the Supreme Court, according to which documents voluntarily handed over by a person to the investigator may be recognized as admissible evidence in criminal proceedings.