Pre-Trial Judicial Control in The Common Law Tradition: Functional Equivalents of The Investigating Judge and Lessons for Uzbekistan
Keywords:
Investigating judge; pre-trial judicial control; common law; magistrate; exclusionary rule; ladder principle; legal translation; Uzbekistan.Abstract
This article offers a comparative legal analysis of pre-trial judicial control in England and Wales, the United States and Canada. It examines how the common law, which has no investigating judge in the continental sense, secures judicial oversight of interferences with personal liberty and privacy, and what lessons this experience holds for the investigating judge introduced in Uzbekistan in 2025. Drawing on functional comparison and case-law analysis, the study shows that magistrates, federal magistrate judges and examining justices perform no investigative function and are confined to authorising and reviewing coercive measures. Pre-trial control in this tradition rests on the combination of two mechanisms: prior judicial authorisation (ex ante) and the subsequent exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence (ex post). The article argues that the Uzbek investigating judge, despite its continental name, is functionally a “judicial control judge”, and that the approval of nearly 95 per cent of detention requests points to a risk of “legal translation”, whereby a transplanted institution is reshaped by the earlier practice of prosecutorial sanction. Specific amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Uzbekistan are proposed.References
1.Ibrokhimov B.T. (2025). Jinoyat protsessida prokuror va sud nazoratining o‘zaro mutanosibligiga oid masalalar [Issues of the correlation between prosecutorial and judicial control in criminal procedure] (PhD dissertation). Tashkent, pp. 137–139. (In Uzbek)
2. Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. PF-89 of 10 June 2024 “On measures to further strengthen guarantees of reliable protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual in operational-search and investigative activities”. National Database of Legislation. https://lex.uz (In Uzbek)
3. Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan of 22 September 1994 (as amended by Law No. ZRU-1022 of 28 January 2025). https://lex.uz/docs/111460 (In Uzbek)
4. Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan (2026). Letter No. 07-14/26-85375 of 8 September 2026 with statistical annexes (reply to the author’s request). Unpublished. (In Uzbek)
5. Damaška, M. R. (1975). Structures of authority and comparative criminal procedure. Yale Law Journal, 84(3), 480–544.
6. Damaška, M. R. (1986). The faces of justice and state authority: A comparative approach to the legal process. New Haven: Yale University Press.
7. Langer, M. (2004). From legal transplants to legal translations: The globalization of plea bargaining and the Americanization thesis in criminal procedure. Harvard International Law Journal, 45(1), 1–64.
8. Omonov, Z. (2026). Tergov sudyasi qarorlarining qonuniyligi, asosliligi va adolatliligi mezonlari: nazariy tahlil va sud amaliyoti asosida baholash [Criteria of legality, validity and fairness of investigating judges’ decisions: A theoretical analysis and assessment based on judicial
practice]. Jamiyat va innovatsiyalar [Society and Innovations], 7(4), 261–268. (In Uzbek)
9. Berndt, E. (2023). Sledstvennyi sud’ya ili prokuror? [Investigating judge or prosecutor?] (E. E.Konovalova, Trans.; S. G. Konovalov, Ed.). Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 11. Pravo [Moscow University Bulletin. Series 11. Law], (4), 87–114. (In Russian)
10. Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (31 Cha. 2 c. 2) (England).
11. Muminov, B. A. (2020). Jinoyat ishlarini sudga qadar yuritish ustidan sud nazorati [Judicial control over pre-trial proceedings in criminal cases] (DSc dissertation). Tashkent. (In Uzbek)
