CRIMINAL LAW PROTECTION OF MEDIA ACTIVITIES

Abstract

The article is devoted to identifying contradictory provisions in the current
criminal liability law contained in the norms aimed at protecting mass media
activities and developing proposals for improving these legal provisions and law
enforcement practices.
It has been established that the amendments to the Criminal Code of
Ukraine introduced by the Law of Ukraine dated May 14, 2015, No. 421-VIII, in
several provisions do not comply with the principles of criminalizing socially
dangerous acts, thereby creating contradictions in the current criminal legislation.
In particular, the principle of systemic legal consistency is violated by the
fact that the new Articles 345-1, 347-1, 348-1, and 349-1 of the Criminal Code are
placed in Section XV of the Special Part of the Criminal Code, while the provisions
on obstructing the lawful professional activities of journalists (Article 171 of the
Criminal Code) remain in Section V of the Special Part. It would be more
appropriate to exclude Article 171 from the Code and incorporate its provisions
into a new Article 343-1 of the Criminal Code.
Furthermore, the principle of systemic legal consistency and the principle of
proportionality of prohibitions are not upheld, as the special provision on the
attempted murder of a journalist (Article 348-1 of the Criminal Code) prescribes a
less severe penalty than the corresponding general provision (paragraph 8 of Part
2 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code). To address this, it is proposed that the
penalty under the general provision should be less severe than that under the
special provision. Additionally, certain inconsistencies between general (Articles
121, 122 of the Criminal Code) and special (Parts 2 and 3 of Article 345-1 of the
Criminal Code) norms have been identified in cases involving the imposition of
penalties for inflicting moderate or severe bodily harm under aggravating
circumstances. Therefore, it is proposed to supplement paragraph 12,
subparagraph 3, of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine
dated June 4, 2010, No. 7 with the following text: if a special provision does not
include the aggravating circumstances specified in the general provision, resulting
in the general provision prescribing a more severe punishment than the special
provision, the offender's actions should be additionally qualified under the
general provision. The principles of systemic legal consistency, completeness, clarity, and
uniformity of terminology are also violated in cases where provisions addressing
liability for offenses against both the victim and related persons use different
terminology for the latter in various articles—such as "close relatives", "close
relatives or family members", and "close persons." Therefore, it is proposed that
all such provisions of the law use a single universal term: "close persons."