The hearing on a preventive measure is one of the most important stages of criminal proceedings because it determines the real extent of restriction on a person’s liberty
Our position is principled: a preventive measure is not punishment. A person whose preventive measure is being considered has not been found guilty. He or she benefits from the presumption of innocence and has the right to liberty and security of person guaranteed by Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
That is why defence at the preventive measure hearing must be fast, precise and firm within the limits of the law. In such cases, there are no minor details. Every document, every formulation used by the prosecutor, every alleged risk, every personal circumstance, every social connection and every procedural violation may affect the outcome.
Liberty Is the Rule, Restriction of Liberty Is the Exception
In criminal proceedings, the State has the power to apply preventive measures, but that power is not unlimited.
A preventive measure may be applied only for a specific procedural purpose: to ensure that the suspect or accused complies with procedural obligations and to prevent risks defined by law.
This means that the mere existence of criminal proceedings is not a ground for restricting liberty. The mere notification of suspicion does not automatically justify detention. The seriousness of the alleged offence cannot, by itself, replace evidence of risks. Public attention cannot justify pre-trial detention. Formal references to possible absconding, influence on witnesses or destruction of documents are not evidence.
The prosecutor must prove. The defence has the right to challenge. The court must assess.
This is the logic of a fair procedure.
What the Court Actually Decides
During the preventive measure hearing, the court essentially examines several key issues.
First, whether there is a reasonable suspicion. This does not mean proof of guilt. However, the suspicion must be based on specific facts, documents, testimony or other materials, not on assumptions, general wording or the logic that a person “could have been involved”.
Second, whether there are real procedural risks. The law provides that such risks may include attempts to hide from the investigation or court, destroy or distort evidence, unlawfully influence witnesses, victims or other participants, otherwise obstruct the criminal proceedings, or commit another criminal offence.
But a risk is not the prosecutor’s fear and not a hypothetical assumption. A risk must be supported by specific circumstances. If a person has a permanent residence, family, work, business, dependants, a positive reputation, has appeared when summoned, has not obstructed the investigation, has not influenced witnesses and has not attempted to flee, these circumstances must be heard by the court.
Third, whether a less severe preventive measure can be applied. This is the central issue where the prosecution seeks pre-trial detention. The prosecutor must prove not only the existence of risks, but also that no less severe measure can prevent them.
the outcome.
measure can prevent them.
If the risks can be neutralized by personal obligation, personal surety, bail, house arrest or procedural obligations imposed by the court, pre-trial detention should not be applied.
Pre-Trial Detention Is the Most Severe and Exceptional Measure
Pre-trial detention is the most severe preventive measure. It effectively isolates a person from family, work, business, treatment, normal life and the ability to fully participate in his or her own defence.
That is why the law treats pre-trial detention as an exception. It cannot be a standard reaction to suspicion. It cannot be applied “just in case”. It cannot be used as a pressure tool, a means to force a confession, a way to push a plea agreement or a method of psychological pressure.
For the defence, it is important to show the court a simple but fundamental point: the State may not take away a person’s liberty merely because it is more convenient for the investigation.
If the investigation has evidence, it must investigate it. If there are risks, they must be proven. If procedural obligations are needed, they can be imposed without isolation. If attendance must be ensured, there are less severe preventive measures for that purpose.
Liberty must not lose to formality.
The Role of the Lawyer at the Preventive Measure Hearing
Defence at the preventive measure stage does not begin in the courtroom. It begins the moment information appears about detention, preparation of a motion or the prosecution’s intention to seek a restriction of liberty.
The lawyer must immediately obtain the materials, analyse the suspicion, verify procedural time limits, assess the lawfulness of detention, identify the exact risks alleged by the prosecutor, prepare evidence in favour of the client, collect character references, documents on family status, place of residence, employment, health, dependants, public activity, compliance with procedural obligations and other circumstances confirming that a
severe preventive measure is unnecessary.
In court, the lawyer should not limit the defence to a general objection. Each element of the prosecution’s position must be challenged: the reasonableness of the suspicion, the reality of the risks, the admissibility of evidence, the proportionality of the restriction, the possibility of applying an alternative measure, the amount of bail, the lawfulness of imposed obligations and the duration of the measure.
The lawyer’s main task is not simply to speak in court, but to make the court see the person behind the case file.
Evidence That Matters for Liberty
In preventive measure cases, documents that may appear unrelated to the merits of the criminal case can be highly important. They often show the court that the person does not pose a risk to justice.
Relevant materials may include proof of permanent residence, family ties, children or dependants, health condition, need for treatment, official employment, business activity, payment of taxes, positive reputation, volunteer or public activity, absence of previous convictions, prior conduct in the proceedings, voluntary appearance before the investigator or court, provision of documents, and absence of attempts to influence
witnesses or destroy evidence.
Such materials help demonstrate that the client has strong social ties, does not intend to abscond, is ready to comply with procedural obligations and may remain at liberty without harming the criminal proceedings.
In a properly built defence strategy, these documents are not formal attachments. They become part of the argument for liberty.
the outcome.
measure can prevent them.
argument for liberty.
Bail as an Alternative to Pre-Trial Detention
In many cases, bail may be an effective alternative to pre-trial detention. It allows the court to secure the person’s proper conduct without isolating him or her from society.
However, bail must also be fair, proportionate and realistically payable. An excessive amount of bail may effectively become hidden detention. If the person or the family objectively cannot pay the amount set by the court, bail does not function as an alternative. It merely masks deprivation of liberty.
Therefore, the defence must not only request bail, but also substantiate its amount: by the person’s income, property status, family circumstances, nature of the suspicion, real risks and the principle of proportionality.
Bail must not be punishment before conviction. It must be a procedural guarantee, not a financial trap.
House Arrest, Personal Obligation and Other Alternatives
Pre-trial detention is not the only way to ensure a person’s proper conduct. The law provides other preventive measures that may be sufficient in a particular case.
Personal obligation may include duties imposed by the court. Personal surety allows trusted persons to guarantee the suspect’s or accused’s proper conduct. House arrest can provide control over the person’s location without placing him or her in a detention facility. Bail may create a financial guarantee of compliance with procedural obligations.
The task of the defence is to show the court that a specific less severe measure is sufficient. Not in theory, but in view of the client’s personality, the circumstances of the case, the nature of the risks and the possibility of neutralizing them without deprivation of liberty.
Appeal Against a Preventive Measure
If the first-instance court applies an excessively severe preventive measure, the defence does not end. A decision on pre-trial detention or another significant measure may be challenged on appeal.
An appeal should not merely repeat the oral submissions made before the first-instance court. It must precisely analyse the errors in the ruling. It must show which risks were not proven, which evidence was not assessed, which circumstances were ignored, why the court’s conclusions were formal, why bail is excessive or why a less severe measure would have been sufficient.
In addition, where circumstances change, the defence may initiate a change of preventive measure. For example, where risks have decreased, key investigative actions have been completed, witnesses have been questioned, documents have been seized, the person has complied with obligations, or new information has appeared concerning health or family circumstances.
Liberty must be defended not once, but continuously, for as long as there is a risk of unlawful or excessive restriction.
What Our Assistance Includes
Attorneys at Law “Gromov & Gromova” defends clients during the selection, extension, change and appeal of preventive measures.
We analyse the prosecution’s motion, verify the reasonableness of the suspicion, challenge the alleged risks, prepare evidence in favour of the client, build the legal position for court, participate in hearings, substantiate the possibility of applying a less severe preventive measure, prepare appeals, file motions to change the preventive measure and support the client at all stages of criminal proceedings.
the outcome.
measure can prevent them.
argument for liberty.
procedural obligations.
restriction.
What Our Assistance Includes
preventive measures.
In such cases, we proceed from a basic principle: the State must prove the need to restrict liberty; the person should not have to prove the right to be free.
Conclusion
Defence at the preventive measure hearing is the defence of the right to liberty and security of person.
It is the moment when the lawyer must act quickly, precisely and with principle. It is the moment when the court must hear not only the prosecution, but also the person against whom the State seeks coercion. It is the moment when a formal suspicion must not automatically become a loss of liberty.
Human liberty is not a procedural convenience and not a bargaining item. It is a fundamental right.
And it is precisely this right that we defend at every preventive measure hearing.
the outcome.
measure can prevent them.
argument for liberty.
procedural obligations.
restriction.
What Our Assistance Includes
preventive measures.
Conclusion
the outcome.
measure can prevent them.
argument for liberty.
procedural obligations.
restriction.
What Our Assistance Includes
preventive measures.
Conclusion
the outcome.
measure can prevent them.
argument for liberty.
procedural obligations.
restriction.
What Our Assistance Includes
preventive measures.