Legal Lapses in the Form of Retrospective Application of an Aggravating Law for Ongoing Criminal Offenses

The article proves, that the panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court in the decision of November 11, 2021 in case No. 220/1260/20 in violation of the requirements of Part 1 and Part 3 of Art. 3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine recognized as a source of criminal legislation not specified norms of the code about «the time (period) of committing a criminal offense, but its own “invention” in the form of a kind of “cannabis theory about the day of commission of an ongoing criminal offense in the sense of the entire period of its commission”, considering, however, such only the day of the end of drug storage. Due to this, in violation of Part 2 of Art. 3, Part 1, 2, 3 of Art. 8, Part 3 of Art. 22, Part 1 of Art. 58, Part 3 of Art. 62 and others. of the Constitution of Ukraine, Part 2 of Art. 5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, Part 4 of Art. 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the position of the widely recognized British lawyer A.V. Dicey, paragraphs 44-51 and paragraph 52 of the report of the Venice Commission “Rule of Law”, Part 1 of Art. 7 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; established judicial practice: numerous decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, the Criminal Court of Cassation and other courts of Cassation, the judges of this collegium, legally incompetent, retrospectively extended the effect of the aggravating law to the entire period of possession by the defendant in his home of a particularly dangerous drug - cannabis, in the absence in the case of evidence, and that with the entry into force of the new aggravating law, the defendant's intention to continue the already renewed criminal status changed accordingly. In the presence of this kind of evidence, it would be possible to talk about the emergence of grounds for substantiating such a new category of the general part of the Anticriminal Branch of Law, as an ongoing continuing criminal offense consisting of two or more identical episodes based on anticriminal laws of different degrees of severity, united by one purpose in the form of direct or indirect intention. At the same time, actually on the basis of the indicated legally incompetent decision of the Cassation Court, the chairman of the Dobrovelichkiv district court of the Kirovohrad region with the surname I.P. Master indicative of the judicial situation under analysis under similar circumstances, with a change in the legislation, decide the same decision in the case of committing an ongoing criminal offense of voluntarily leaving a military unit or place of service, committed under martial law