On Wednesday, Minister of Justice Madis Timpson (Reform) introduced the Ministry of Justice's proposed amendments to the Penal Code, aiming to expedite and make the handling of criminal cases in court more cost-effective starting next year.

"If we compare it to five years ago, the average processing time in general proceedings has almost doubled. This is a problem," Timpson said.

According to Timpson, the current Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide enough suitable procedural tools for resolving particularly large criminal cases.

The Ministry of Justice plans to outline limits on traditional delay tactics with the bill, such as malicious changes of defense attorneys, surprise evidence, court absences and similar strategies.

"We are giving judges the opportunity to better control the process. Judges can recognize whether a person is maliciously trying to delay proceedings," Timpson commented on how to identify malicious behavior in such situations.

Timpson explained that if a judge identifies a person delaying proceedings by changing attorneys, the judge will have the right to appoint a substitute attorney after the amendment.

The planned amendment would introduce an acceptance procedure into criminal proceedings. This means that before going to court, the parties can inform the court of the undisputed facts. "This will also allow the court and the parties to save time and money," Timpson noted.

According to the proposed bill, detaching a civil claim from criminal proceedings will become easier, resulting in fewer criminal cases hindered by civil claims.

"The idea is that if a civil claim is so significant that it impedes criminal proceedings, they can be separated. This gives judges a tool," Timpson explained. He added that detaching the civil claim allows the criminal responsibility to be determined first, with the damage being debated later.

The Ministry of Justice also plans to streamline the regulation of summary proceedings. Under the amendment, the defendant will have to decide earlier than before whether they wish to opt for a summary proceeding. The prosecutor's office will also gain the right to appeal court decisions that it deems to be in violation of the law.

Additionally, the ministry intends to limit the right to file appeals and investigative complaints and to provide the possibility of issuing more orders in the form of captions. The aim is to avoid unnecessary delays in proceedings since most interim decisions can be contested during the judicial hearing of the criminal case.

The amendment would also give the court the ability to set a maximum time limit for court speeches. "Everything you wish to say can still be submitted in writing, but the judge can limit oral presentations in court," said Timpson.

The admissibility of evidence will be assessed during the pre-trial phase to avoid surprises and overproofing. However, this does not eliminate the possibility of presenting additional evidence.

The amendment would enable the court to intervene more substantively in how parties present extensive evidence, such as documents and recordings, to the court.

The ministry also plans to clarify the regulation of evidence exchange to reduce the parties' opportunities to surprise each other and thus delay proceedings.

The Ministry of Justice is seeking feedback on the draft bill during the coordination round until August 22. Afterward, the ministry will review the proposals received, make any necessary adjustments to the draft and then submit it to the government. The amendments are expected to come into effect at the beginning of 2025, according to the ministry.

Professor: Ministry's proposals feasible

In an interview with ERR, Jaan Ginter, a professor of criminology at the University of Tartu's Faculty of Law, evaluated the Ministry of Justice's proposals to expedite proceedings.

"Something can definitely be done," Ginter responded when asked whether the planned steps to speed up court work are feasible. "Already now, we have an indictment on one side with the prosecutor's evidence and a defense statement on the other with the defense's evidence. Regarding surprises, something is already being done, but it's clear that more can be done."

Ginter believes that appointing substitute defense attorneys would reduce the desire of defendants to delay proceedings. "If we allocate some resources to appoint these substitute attorneys, it will clearly reduce the desire of contractual defense attorneys to delay. It's obvious that a client won't be happy if they have a state-appointed attorney at their hearing. The client will then talk to their contractual representative, and there will be less delaying," Ginter explained.

According to Ginter, the acceptance procedure does not address malicious delays but would make criminal proceedings more reasonable. "Essentially, this doesn't help prevent malicious delays, but it helps make criminal proceedings more rational. Both parties – the defense and the prosecution – can agree not to dispute certain issues, saving resources. This works very well in civil cases."

"In criminal cases, it works for a defendant with a conscience who doesn't want to delay excessively. But for those who do want to delay, they simply won't agree and won't state that an issue is undisputed," Ginter noted.

Detaching civil claims, according to Ginter, means delays for the victim, but it would have expedited the Port of Tallinn case.

Ginter explained that the court already bears full responsibility for the outcome of criminal cases. "The Prosecutor's Office is responsible for which cases go to court, but once in court, the responsibility for what happens with those cases lies with the court."

In the case of Port of Tallinn, Ginter sees fault with both the prosecution and the court. "In the Port of Tallinn case, the Prosecutor's Office is partly to blame for bringing such a large cluster of major episodes together. That was their responsibility. The court is responsible for allowing the defense attorneys to delay the case for so long that it eventually expired."

Ginter stated that the idea of giving judges more tools to prevent malicious delays is mainly to encourage judges. "Substitute defense attorneys can be appointed even now, but judges need encouragement to take clearer control of the proceedings."

Ginter added that the training of judges should also focus more on how to manage court hearings effectively. "Judges are expected to be top lawyers – and they should be – but in complex cases, they also need to be top administrators."

MP: Ministry's solution workable

"I believe it is the right direction to take," said Andre Hanimägi (SDE), chairman of the Riigikogu Legal Affairs Committee.

"What has also been widely discussed recently, and has been evident, is that intentional or unintentional delays have extended proceedings significantly. Improving cost-effectiveness and speeding up these matters could definitely be a very important step," Hanimägi told "Aktuaalne kaamera."

He stated that the solution proposed by the Ministry of Justice could be effective.

"I see that if we continue taking small and reasonable steps, we will eventually come to the pre-trial phase and improve those aspects as well. But for now, looking at the proposals from the Ministry of Justice, I have a rather positive feeling that these measures could help expedite proceedings," said Hanimägi.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!