Scientific Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs

  • Received 18.05.2025,
  • Revised 31.10.2025,
  • Accepted 25.11.2025
Download article Download article
Vol. 30, No. 4, 2025
  • management of investigative resources; algorithm for determining priorities; specialisation of investigative units; interdepartmental coordination of pre-trial investigation; criteria for the public signifi- cance of crimes; optimisation of criminal procedural activities
  • https://doi.org/10.63341/naia-herald/4.2025.53
  • Pages 53-62

The study analysed the organisational and legal basis for prioritising the activities of investigative units of the National Police of Ukraine in the context of criminal procedural activities. The relevance of the study is conditioned by the growing burden on investigative units (more than 1.5 million criminal proceedings in 2024 with an average load of 307 proceedings per investigator) and the need for strategic management under martial law. In such circumstances, prioritisation acts not only as a management tool, but also as a factor in ensuring the efficiency, sustainability, and effectiveness of the activities of pre-trial investigation bodies. The purpose of the study was to substantiate and systematise the concept of prioritisation in the functioning of investigative units as a means of improving criminal procedural activities and optimising the use of limited resources. The methodology included: systematic and comparative legal approaches, analysis of statistical and regulatory data, and generalisation of empirical materials of pre-trial investigation practice. The use of these methods helped to identify both theoretical and applied aspects of prioritisation in criminal proceedings. The results of the study showed that determining the priority of criminal proceedings is based on a set of legal, procedural, and social criteria: the severity of the crime, the risk to the life and safety of individuals, the presence of procedural deadlines, public response, and the urgency of investigative (search) actions. The paper offered a detailed five-stage prioritisation algorithm that covers legal qualifications, procedural status, operational and official circumstances, the investigation stage, and the final assessment. The necessity of improving the mechanisms of interdepartmental coordination, optimising the workload, and considering the expectations of civil society was substantiated. The practical significance of the study was to develop a structured approach to managing priorities in the activities of investigative units, which will contribute to improving the effectiveness of pre-trial investigation, ensuring timely procedural response, and building public confidence. The necessity of introducing specialisation, updating the training system, and introducing uniform priority criteria, especially in the investigation of war crimes and crimes against vulnerable categories of persons, was justified

References

  1. Balynska, O., Kisil, Z., & Blikhar, V. (2024). Modern understanding of stress factors in police work in scientific research. Social and Legal Studios, 7(4), 240-247. doi: 10.32518/sals4.2024.240.
  2. Busel, V. (n.d.). Ukrainian explanatory dictionary. Retrieved from https://slovnyk.ua/index.php?swrd=%D0%9F%D1%80%D1%96%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%82.
  3. Charman, S., & Williams, E. (2021). Accessing justice: The impact of discretion, “deservedness” and distributive justice on the equitable allocation of policing resources. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 22, 404-422. doi: 10.1177/17488958211013075.
  4. Chlevickaitė, G. (2025). Documenting conflict-related crimes in Ukraine: Civil society innovations, adaptations and networks in the accountability ecosystem. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 23(3-4), 523-543doi: 10.1093/jicj/mqaf020.
  5. Deslauriers-Varin, N., & Fortin, F. (2021). Improving efficiency and understanding of criminal investigations: Toward an evidence-based approach. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 36, 635-638. doi: 10.1007/s11896-021-09491-6.
  6. Dovhanych, V.V. (2022). Application of limitation periods for bringing a person to criminal responsibility at certain stages of criminal proceedings. Legal Scientific Electronic Journal, 12, 426-429doi: 10.32782/2524-0374/2022-12/100.
  7. Halford, E. (2024). On the decision-making framework for policing: A proposal for improving police decision-making. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 79, article number 100702. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlcj.2024.100702.
  8. Horsman, G. (2022). A proposed method for case prioritisation in digital forensic laboratories. Science & Justice, 62(5), 594-601. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2022.08.008.
  9. Kassem, R., & Turksen, U. (2025). Beyond resources: Understanding police attitudes to fraud and the barriers to prioritisation. Policing: An International Journal, 49(1), 1-16. doi: 10.1108/PIJPSM-02-2025-0024.
  10. Keatley, D.A. (2025). Prioritizing patterns in evidence: Applying the analysis of competing hypotheses framework to criminal investigations and cold cases. Science & Justice, 65, article number 101308. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2025.101308.
  11. Kovbas, I.V., & Bzova, L.H. (2025). Civil society dialogue with public authorities: Challenges and strategic directions. Legal Scientific Electronic Journal, 1, 606-609. doi: 10.32782/2524-0374/2025-1/141.
  12. Kubaienko, A.V. (2023). Optimization of organizational processes of pre-trial investigation: The need for structural changes. Scientific Notes of V.I. Vernadsky TNU. Series: Legal Sciences, 34(1), 186-190. doi: 10.32782/TNU-2707-0581/2023.2/31.
  13. Landström, L., Eklund, N.,& Naarttijärvi, M.(2019). Legallimitstoprioritisationinpolicing– challenging the impact of centralisation. Policing and Society, 30(9), 1061-1080. doi: 10.1080/10439463.2019.1634717.
  14. Maslen, H., & Paine, C. (2024). Ethical resource allocation in policing: Why policing requires a different approach from healthcare. Criminal Justice Ethics, 43(1), 1-36. doi: 10.1080/0731129X.2024.2327819.
  15. Mortera, J., & Thompson, W.C. (2025). The epistemic value of novel predictive success in scientific and criminal investigations: A Bayesian explanation. arXivdoi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.11104.
  16. National Police of Ukraine. (2024). Internal staffing data on the number of investigators. Kyiv: National Police of Ukraine.
  17. Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine. (2025). Registered criminal offences and results of their pre-trial investigation. Retrieved from https://www.gp.gov.ua/ua/posts/pro-zareyestrovani-kriminalni-pravoporushennya-ta-rezultati-yih-dosudovogo-rozsliduvannya-2.
  18. Prince, H., Lum, C., & Koper, C.S. (2021). Effective police investigative practices: An evidence-assessment of the research. Policing: An International Journal, 44(4), 683-707. doi: 10.1108/PIJPSM-04-2021-0054
  19. Rossmo, D.K., & Jones, A.M. (2025). Group-individual probability confusion: Implications for suspect prioritization in criminal investigations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 99, article number 102452. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2025.102452.
  20. Sullivan, T., Smith, J., Ombler, F., & Brayley-Morris, H. (2018). Prioritising the investigation of organised crime. Policing and Society, 30(3), 327-348. doi: 10.1080/10439463.2018.1533961.
  21. Wickenheiser, R.A. (2023). Proactive crime scene response optimizes crime investigation. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 6, article number 100325. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2023.100325.
  22. Wilson-Kovacs, D., & Wilcox, J. (2023). Managing policing demand for digital forensics through risk assessment and prioritization in England and Wales. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 17, article number paac106. doi: 10.1093/police/paac106.