The Procedure of Excluding Illegal Evidence

Author(s):  
Jingkun Liu
Keyword(s):  
2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 283-301
Author(s):  
Er-qi LU ◽  
◽  
Ling-min ZHOU ◽  
HUANG Ying ◽  
Ke-jiong CAI

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (24) ◽  
pp. 333-350
Author(s):  
Norbert Nowicki

Zagadnienia omawiane w niniejszym artykule dotyczą statusu normatywnego czynności operacyjno-rozpoznawczych w kontekście ustawy o Policji oraz kodeksu postępowania karnego. Podjęto próbę wskazania warunków, które rzutują na legalny charakter inwigilacji, a co za tym idzie – na skuteczne wykorzystanie materiału operacyjnego w procesie karnym. W tym celu scharakteryzowano niejawną aktywność Policji, wyszczególniając dopuszczalne metody operacyjne oraz definiując czynności operacyjno-rozpoznawcze w świetle literatury przedmiotu. Aby w pełni zobrazować problematykę poruszoną w artykule, przeanalizowano relację prawną między dowodem nielegalnym, o którym mowa w art. 168a kpk, a dowodem z czynności operacyjno-rozpoznawczych, na przykładzie zarządzonej kontroli operacyjnej. Praktyczny wymiar tych rozważań omówiono z punktu widzenia postępowania dowodowego, z uwzględnieniem ról i obowiązków procesowych prokuratora oraz sądu. Normative approach to operational and reconnaissance activities in terms of illegal evidence The issues discussed in this article refer to the normative status of operational and investigative activities in the context of the Police Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. Namely, an attempt was made to demonstrate the conditions that affect the legal nature of surveillance, and thus the effective use of operational material in a criminal trial. For this purpose, the covert activity of the Police has been characterized by listing acceptable operational methods and defining operational and reconnaissance activities in the light of the literature on the subject. Therefore, in order to fully illustrate the issues discussed, an analysis was conducted of the legal relationship between the illegal evidence referred to in Art. 168a of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the evidence from operational and reconnaissance activities, on the example of an ordered operational control. The practical dimension of these considerations is discussed from the point of view of evidence proceedings, taking into account the procedural roles and responsibilities of the prosecutor and the court.


2021 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 435-456
Author(s):  
Milana Pisarić

The Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that court decisions may not be based on evidence which is, directly or indirectly, by itself or in the manner of obtaining it, contrary to the Constitution, this Code, other laws or the generally accepted rules of international law and ratified international treaties, except in proceedings conducted for the purpose of obtaining such evidence. Illegal evidence cannot be used in criminal proceedings and is therefore separated from the case file. If the judgment is based on illegal evidence, it can be challenged by the appeal against the judgment, but also by the request for the protection of legality. The subject of the paper is the analysis of the recent case law of the Supreme Court of Cassation (in the period from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020) regarding the requests for the protection of legality stated in connection with illegal evidence.


Author(s):  
María Cinta Costa Torné

En este artículo se pretende hacer un breve estudio de la ilicitud de la prueba y de las consecuencias jurídicas que ello conlleva, así como de las excepciones a dicha ilicitud. La sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional 114/1984, de 29 de noviembre, introdujo en nuestro sistema legal la prohibición de utilizar pruebas obtenidas vulnerando derechos fundamentales. Consecuencia de esta sentencia fue el artículo 11.1 Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial que prohíbe expresamente la valoración de dichas pruebas, que puedan surtir efectos en el proceso y sirvan para basar en ellas una sentencia condenatoria. No obstante esta regla de exclusión de la prueba ilícita, el riesgo de admitir una prueba obtenida habiéndose vulnerado derechos fundamentales está presente en nuestro proceso a través de las cada vez más frecuentes excepciones, apreciadas por los Tribunales, tanto por el Tribunal Supremo como por el Tribunal Constitucional, que permiten que una prueba ilícitamente obtenida, se llegue a valorarse para que determinados delitos no queden impunes.This repot is a brief study of the illegality of the evidence and its legal consequences, as well as the exceptions to that illegality. The sentence of the Constitutional Court 114/1984, 29th November, introduced in our legal system the prohibition on using evidence obtained violating fundamental rights. According to that sentence Article 11.1 LOPJ prohibit expressly assessment of such evidence that can have an impact on the process and serve them to base a conviction. However this rule of exclusion of illegal evidence, the risk of admitting obtained evidence having violated fundamental rights is present in our laws, through increasingly frequent exceptions, appreciated by both the Spreme Court and the Constitutional Court, which allow that an illegally obtained evidence, could be valuable for certain crimes not to go unpunished.


Author(s):  
Çetin Arslan

While the arbitration, in essence, is a special law institution, there are various points it intersect with the criminal law. It is quite important to investigate the aforementioned probabilities that criminal law norms may affect the arbitration procedures and/or decisions and the probable consequences of these. In this respect, the feasibility of the use of the Criminal Procedure Law (i.e. criminal conviction, illegal evidence) in the Arbitration Law, the bindingness and the indirect effects of the decisions of the criminal court and the punitive responsibilities of the refrees are all some of the important issues that can be examined under this heading. The subjects mentioned in the paper will be evaluated from the perspective of Turkish Law theory and practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document