1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** Cassation review of a verdict concerning the conviction of an individual for unlawful acquisition, possession, and sale of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) in connection with arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence and the severity of the imposed sentence.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The Supreme Court established that conducting a repeated undercover purchase within the framework of a single criminal proceeding without entering separate data into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations (URPI) for each new episode constitutes a substantial violation of the criminal procedural law.
– The Court emphasized that it is impermissible to investigate new independent crimes under the guise of the materials of the primary proceeding if they are not part of a single continuing crime.
– In accordance with the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, evidence obtained during searches and expert examinations based on the unlawfully conducted repeated purchase was deemed inadmissible.
– Regarding the sentence, the Court noted that for the application of the preferential provision of Article 69-1 of the Criminal Code (imposition of 2/3 of the maximum term), a combination of conditions is required: the presence of mitigating circumstances under Clauses 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Article 66 of the Criminal Code, the absence of aggravating circumstances, and an admission of guilt, which in this case was not fully established.
– The Court also rejected arguments concerning the recalculation of the pre-trial detention period due to “unsatisfactory sanitary conditions,” as the current Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for such a compensation mechanism.
– The Court explicitly referred to its previous practice (cases No. 742/502/24 and No. 711/5536/20), confirming the consistency of its position regarding the inadmissibility of investigating new episodes without entering data into the URPI, which effectively consolidates the legal position on the inadmissibility of such evidence.
3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, set aside the court decisions in the part concerning the conviction under Part 2 and Part 3 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code, closed the proceedings regarding these episodes, and upheld the verdict only in respect of Part 1 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code, imposing a sentence of 4 years of imprisonment.
