The Supreme Court clarified the criteria for involving minors in the commission of a crime
The Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan has issued a ruling that determines judicial practice in cases concerning the involvement of minors in criminal activity.
According to information provided by the Supreme Court, based on the established circumstances of the criminal case, a minor called the victim to a meeting under the pretext of returning a mobile phone that had been taken earlier and, having passed information about the victim to an adult who was nearby, proposed taking money from him. Subsequently, both individuals, acting by prior agreement, led the victim to the building of a café under renovation, where, threatening him with a knife and using physical violence, they took possession of his money and other property.
The lower courts found the adult citizen guilty and convicted him not only of committing robbery, but also of involving a minor in criminal activity. In his cassation appeal, the convicted person stated that he had not drawn the minor into criminal activity, and therefore his actions did not contain the elements of the crime provided for in Article 170.3 of the Criminal Code.
Having examined the case, the Supreme Court noted that the fact that an adult committed a crime together with a minor does not in itself mean that the adult involved the latter in criminal activity. For liability for involving a minor in criminal activity to arise, it must be established that the adult committed specific acts that induced the minor to commit the crime. According to the law, such influence may be expressed in the form of deception, promises, threats, the use of violence or the threat of its use. In other words, it must be proven that physical or psychological influence was exerted, aimed at forming in the minor the intent and determination to commit a crime. If the existence of such influence is not proven, the mere fact that an adult and a minor jointly committed a crime is insufficient for the application of Article 170 of the Criminal Code.
Having studied the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court established that the adult had not incited his underage acquaintance to commit the crime. Facts of deceiving the minor, promising him benefits or other advantages, threats, the use of violence or the threat of its use were not confirmed during the court proceedings. On the contrary, according to the circumstances established in the case, it was precisely the minor who took the initiative in committing the robbery: he proposed taking money from the victim and arranged a meeting with him under the pretext of returning the phone.
Since the fact that the convicted person involved a minor in criminal activity by any of the methods provided for by law was not confirmed, the Supreme Court concluded that his actions did not contain the elements of the crime provided for in Article 170.3 of the Criminal Code.
