DISCIPLINARY LIABILITY OF FORENSIC EXPERTS OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE OF UKRAINE: GROUNDS, PROCEDURE AND GUARANTEES OF PROFESSIONAL INDEPENDENCE

Abstract

The article is focused on the liability in discipline of forensic experts working at the establishments of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine as a special legal mechanism, which should ensure the combination of professional liability with the guarantees of expert independence. The relevance of this topic is based on the evidentiary value of forensic conclusions in criminal, civil, commercial, and administrative proceedings. The conclusion of an expert in forensic science is based on special knowledge and may substantially affect the establishment of facts in court. Therefore, improper performance of expert duties can impact not only the reputation of a forensic institution but also the quality of evidence, the procedural rights of participants as well as public trust in justice. It should be noted that control over experts’ disciplinary responsibility should not transform into a means of administrative pressure or an indirect way of appealing against the substance of expert conclusions. The article is aimed at determining the legal nature, grounds, procedure and safeguards of disciplinary liability of forensic experts working in the institutions of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, with special focus on the renewed 2025 regulatory framework of the Central Expert Qualification Commission under the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. The study is carried out through formal legal analysis, systemic interpretation, doctrinal analysis and comparative legal reasoning. These methods allow for the examination of provisions in legislation, subordinate regulations, case law and scholarly approaches on the subject of legal responsibility of forensic experts. The article argues that the liability of a forensic expert in disciplinary matters cannot be lowered to the liability of an ordinary worker. Even if the expert works in a state institution of a special type, his or her professional activity in the case is related to the administration of justice and should be independent, objective, and based on science. Disciplinary misconduct is differentiated from professional error, procedural disagreement with an expert conclusion, criminal liability, administrative liability, and civil liability in this study. It is underlined that even strong disagreement with an expert opinion voiced by a party to proceedings cannot serve as a ground for disciplinary responsibility by itself. The latter can be admitted as legitimate only when an actual breach of some specific professional duty, established by law or by special regulatory acts, has taken place. Particular attention is paid to procedural safeguards in disciplinary proceedings, including the expert’s right to be informed of the allegations, to access materials, to provide explanations and objections, to submit motions, to participate in hearings, to be represented and to challenge disciplinary decisions before a court. The article sets forth four criteria for disciplinary liability: legality of the ground, procedural fairness, limitation of the subject matter of review and proportionality of the sanction. The paper concludes that a disciplinary procedure of such design actually supports the independence of forensic experts since it protects the profession from misbehavior while shielding the expert from arbitrary influence.