Agenda Profile: Valdo Randpere
Draft law amending the Code of Criminal Procedure and other laws (optimization of court proceedings and publicity of court decisions) (560 SE) – first reading
2025-02-12
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
Political Position
The political focus is on increasing the efficiency of criminal proceedings and ensuring the certainty of punishment, while strongly supporting Bill 560 SE, which he deems "almost the best bill." He stresses that this is substantive work that addresses the repeated calls by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for optimizing the process. His stance is strongly policy- and results-driven, focusing on improving the functioning of the justice system.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates profound expertise in the field of criminal law and procedural economy, utilizing technical terminology and referencing the principles of the administration of justice. He addresses potential conflicts between articles of the Constitution (e.g., § 24 and § 22) and possesses detailed knowledge of the amendments to Draft Act 225 and their impact. He relies on the work and opinions of experts from the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Court (including Villu Kõve).
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The speaker employs a highly enthusiastic, optimistic, and appreciative rhetorical style, repeatedly commending both the content of the draft bill and its authors. They utilize both logical arguments (the inevitability of punishment) and emotional expressions ("great joy"), all while maintaining a formal yet engaging tone. The speech opens with a brief procedural critique directed at the opposition, but quickly pivots to substantive commendation.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
He is acting in the Riigikogu as the representative of the lead committee, presenting the draft bill to the plenary session at a late hour this evening. He refers to his active participation in the sitting of the Legal Affairs Committee on January 27th, where he participated in a substantive discussion. He was afforded the honor and pleasure of presenting the bill, although he notes that other colleagues would have wished to do so as well.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
He criticizes the opposition on procedural grounds, accusing them of wasting the day on a fruitless no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister, instead of focusing on substantive legislative work. The criticism is rather incidental and focuses primarily on work organization. He also notes that even those who have previously been skeptical of the courts were in complete agreement regarding this particular draft bill.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
His cooperation style is extremely appreciative and consensus-driven, emphasizing complete unanimity in the Legal Committee regarding the draft bill, where even opposing sides found common ground. He publicly praises the current minister, former Minister of Justice Kalle Laanet (for initiating the working group), as well as officials (Andreas Kangur) and colleagues (Liisa-Ly Pakosta) for their substantive work.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is clearly on the national level, addressing the reform of the Estonian Code of Criminal Procedure and the efficiency of the justice system. It only touches upon the international aspect in relation to foreign criminals leaving Estonia and serving their sentences, referencing a newspaper article.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Insufficient data.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
He addresses the social dimension of the administration of justice, emphasizing that reforms help ensure that perpetrators are punished and improve public perception of the legal system. He also touches upon the constitutional balance between the public nature of court rulings and the presumption of innocence. Furthermore, he mentions the issue of deporting criminals from Estonia.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
His legislative priority is the comprehensive overhaul of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Draft Bill 560 SE), which includes 225 amendments designed to optimize judicial proceedings and increase the transparency of court rulings. He is a strong proponent of the bill and serves as a representative of the leading committee, where he emphasizes the consensus achieved and the substantive nature of the work.
2 Speeches Analyzed