Plagiarism as a form of academic dishonesty of a judge/candidate for the position of a judge and its proof during the qualification assessment

Abstract

The article examines the issue of academic plagiarism in the scientific works of a judge/candidate for the position of a judge as a ground for recognising him/her as academically dishonest and proving it during the qualification assessment. The author establishes that academic integrity is one of the indicators of integrity of a judge/candidate for the position of a judge in general, which, together with other criteria, is subject to establishment and assessment during the qualification assessment and applies exclusively to those judges/candidates for the position of a judge who are engaged in scientific activities and/or have academic degrees/ higher education degrees. The author concludes that academic integrity is a presumption in relation to any judge / candidate for the position of a judge who is a scholar, which is considered irrefutable and exists until otherwise established in the manner prescribed by law. Manifestations of possible academic dishonesty of a judge/candidate for the position of judge are usually recognised as: academic plagiarism; self-plagiarism; procedural violations of academic integrity; citation of works of Russian researchers in the scientific publications of a judge/candidate for the position of judge. The author proves that doubts about the academic integrity of a judge/candidate for the position of judge, in order to be able to rebut the presumption of such integrity, should be as evident as possible and be based on specific proven facts that plagiarism as a form of academic dishonesty occurs in the scientific publications of a judge/candidate for the position of judge. It is such evidentiary plagiarism that may serve as a basis for rebutting the presumption of academic integrity of a judge/candidate for the position of judge. Otherwise, the violations found cannot be considered academic plagiarism within the meaning of Ukrainian legislation and the legal positions of the Supreme Court. A review of the opinions of the Public Integrity Council, which indicate that a judge/candidate for the position of judge is academically dishonest because the members of the Public Integrity Council have found signs of academic plagiarism in his/her scientific works, allows us to conclude that usually no facts of provable academic plagiarism are cited in these opinions. In view of this, as well as the fact that a judge/candidate for the position of a judge may provide oral and/or written explanations (the latter are attached to the case file and, if necessary, further attached to the judicial dossier), and the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine itself may postpone consideration of the issue approved for consideration at the meeting of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine if additional verification is necessary, the Commission usually does not take into account the facts provided in the conclusions of the Public Integrity Council