Aspects of judicial and forensic examination in matters related to the establishment of the money equivalent of non-pecuniary damage

Abstract

In January 2016, A. Erdelevskiy's method for determining the size of caused non-pecuniary damage was excluded from the Register of Forensic Examination Procedures approved by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. It is suggested that expert psychologists pay attention to the possibility of using V. Paliyuk's method in practice, which in some aspects is antagonistic to A. Erdelevskiy's method. V. Paliyuk indicates that the legislature abandoned exact regulation of non-pecuniary damage compensation size, leaving this right to the court. Therefore, the actual size of non-pecuniary damage compensation does not exist until the court determines it.

We studied the criteria for evaluating moral and physical suffering offered by V. Paliyuk. Among them, he identifies general criteria: the essence of lawsuit requirements; the character of the act of the person who caused harm; the degree of the defendant's guilt; the depth, character, and degree of moral and physical suffering, etc., as well as private criteria for evaluating moral suffering depending on the type of crime.

We consider the following decision-making process by the court to be expedient:

1. The court evaluates the evidence produced by the victim and considers the validity of the claim requirements.

2. The court forms a preliminary idea of the required sum, proceeding from the principles of rationality and justice.

3. The court appoints a psychological examination to clarify psychological features of the case that cannot be established during the court session.

4. The court makes a final decision, considering the justifications of the victim, the court's preliminary representation of the required sum, and the opinion of the expert as a certain average indicator.

The analysis of modern judicial and expert practice in establishing a money equivalent of non-pecuniary damage is carried out in the article. The possibilities of using V. Paliyuk's method when performing forensic psychological examinations are considered; stage-by-stage formation of the judgment concerning the sum of compensation for moral suffering is offered based on accounting for 3 components: the victim's position displayed in claim requirements, the expert's opinion displayed in the conclusions of forensic psychological examination, and the opinion of the court itself.