On December 22, the Darnytskyi District Court of Kyiv brought an end to the criminal proceedings (Case No. 753/22620/24), which had long been marked by pressure, formal charges, and attempts to criminalize the absurd whims of the leadership of a military unit regarding their former subordinate.
Serhiy Derevianko, an attorney with BARRISTERS Law Firm, served as defense counsel in the case on behalf of the Northern Interregional Center for the Provision of Free Legal Aid.
The verdict was unequivocal—an acquittal
. The client was found not guilty of the charge brought under Part 5 of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (unauthorized absence from a military unit or place of duty) due to the absence of the elements of a criminal offense in his actions.
. The client was found not guilty of the charge brought under Part 5 of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (unauthorized absence from a military unit or place of duty) due to the absence of the elements of a criminal offense in his actions.Brief description of the case circumstances:
Our client, an officer, was serving in one of the military units in 2023. In November of that same year, on lawful grounds—due to his mother’s serious illness—he was granted leave to return to his family’s place of residence. During this period, his wife’s father was hospitalized and subsequently passed away.
The client called his immediate commander and requested permission to remain at home beyond the period specified in the leave order in order to arrange the funeral. The commander granted permission, taking into account his subordinate’s difficult personal circumstances.
After arranging his father-in-law’s funeral and observing national traditions, the client returned to his military unit and resumed his service. Despite this, the unit’s leadership later began to interpret his absence as having lasted more than three days without valid reasons. At the same time, no complaints were raised regarding the client’s late arrival at the unit, and he was transferred, on general grounds, to a combat unit, where he also served for some time. He was subsequently discharged to the reserve to care for his mother, who is a Group II disabled person.
The prosecutor attempted to prove “unauthorized absence from a military unit” without establishing the key elements—the defendant’s guilt, the form of guilt, the motive, and the purpose of committing the criminal offense.
Facts were replaced with assessments, and liability with interpretations.
Step by step, the defense demonstrated the opposite:
- the defendant’s actions were entirely lawful;
- no evidence confirms the existence of a criminal offense;
- the prosecution failed to meet the standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The defense, both during the pretrial investigation and during the trial, consistently contested both the suspicion and the charges, emphasizing the valid reasons for the client’s late arrival at the unit and the fact that his military service was not interrupted, which is of fundamental importance in this case.
The court heard the arguments, evaluated the evidence, and did what a court in a state governed by the rule of law is supposed to do—it acquitted the man, finding that the elements of the crime were not present. The ruling, in particular, states that during the trial, the validity of the reasons for the defendant’s late reporting for duty was documented. Furthermore, taking into account criminal law doctrine, the court concluded that such a delay cannot be considered a military criminal offense, and therefore, the defendant’s inaction lacks the objective element of the offense provided for in Part 5 of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The court also reasonably cited Part 2 of Article 24 of the Law of Ukraine “On Military Duty and Military Service” No. 2232-XII, pursuant to which military service is suspended for persons who have left military units without authorization. In this particular case, the client continued his service, which effectively confirms the command’s acceptance of the existence of valid reasons for his absence.
This case was not just about one specific person.
It was about the line between the responsibility of military personnel and criminal prosecution, about the temptation to substitute evidence with assumptions, and legal analysis with a formalistic approach.
The defense, conducted by the BARRISTERS law firm, was based not on “empty” words, but on the law, logic, and common sense—and it was precisely this that led to a fair and positive outcome.
Author: Barristers
Source: Barristers Facebook