scholarly journals Czy zmierzamy w stronę autorytarnego sądowego procesu karnego?

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 523-541
Author(s):  
Kazimierz J. Leżak
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Public ◽  
Polish Code

The article discusses recent changes in the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure in the sphere of the prosecutor’s right to oppose decisions made by a court during the trial. The purpose of the article is to show the public prosecutor’s increasing interference in the course of criminal proceedings, which, as a result, makes it possible to take control over the course and outcome of specific criminal proceedings.

PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL OF THE PRINCIPAL ACTION BY THE PROCESUTOR IN THE POLISH CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (XIX) ◽  
pp. 173-183
Author(s):  
Jan Kil
Keyword(s):  
Current Model ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Subject

The subject of the article is the analysis of the admissibility of a partial withdrawal of a principalaction by the prosecutor in the current model of Polish criminal proceedings. The study defines the main procedural rules regarding the issue in question, namely the principle of accusatorial procedure and adversary trial system. In the study, the disposition of Article 14 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is being interpreted with the use of linguistic, teleological and functional directives of interpretation. The study also presents the arguments justifying the acceptance of the view of the admissibility of partial withdrawal of the complaint by the public prosecutor. The study presents the procedural implications of the aforementioned standpoint. In the study the possibility of partial withdrawal of the principal action on the basis of pending supplementary or private prosecution proceedings was also analyzed.

scholarly journals Jawność rozprawy głównej a gwarancje przewidziane w Konstytucji

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-237
Author(s):  
Radosław Koper
Keyword(s):  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Fundamental Change ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Main Trial ◽  
Criminal Proceeding ◽  
The Public ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Right

The principle of openness, as one of the foremost principles of criminal proceedings, is realised above all during the main trial. The amendment act of law to the code of criminal procedure issued on 10 June 2016 introduced model changes in this regard. The article is devoted to a discussion of mainly these changes in the context of their consistency with the Constitution. The first change has to do with the fact that the public prosecutor has the right to express his or her objection toward the holding of a trial in camera, while such an objection is binding for the court. This regulation is a source of reservations of constitutional nature, for it violates the constitutional right to a fair adjudication of a case by the court. The second fundamental change consists in the establishment, as a principle, of audio-visual registering of the court session by the representatives of media outlets. In these terms, a critical analysis should be conducted upon the removal of the condition of the respect of the important interest of the participant of a criminal proceeding. However, a basically positive evaluation was received by the extension of the scope of the openness of the main trial, expressing a thesis about the constancy of this regulation with the Constitution.

Prevention of crime, tort and epidemy: The use of criminal procedure for preventive purposes in Poland during Covid-19

2021 ◽  
pp. 174889582110567
Author(s):  
Arkadiusz Lach
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Illegal Activity ◽  
The Public ◽  
Polish Code ◽  
Prevention Of Crime

Criminal procedure is increasingly becoming an important instrument of prevention. This is a globally observed tendency, and Poland is not an exception. There are several regulations in the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure that allow the preventive use of coercive measures. In 2020, a new and controversial regulation was introduced, authorising the public prosecutor or court to prohibit the publication of content interfering with the legally protected goods of the victim. The author criticises the new preventive measure as duplicating civil law injunctions and expresses the opinion that, in criminal procedure, preventive measures should be used to prevent crime, not every illegal activity. In addition, the article describes the criminal procedure for isolating persons obliged to quarantine themselves because they have tested positive for Covid-19 or had contact with infected persons. This raises the question of the limits of the preventive function of provisional arrest and possible abuse of the criminal process using it for aims unrelated to the traditional goal of the criminal process: determining the question of guilt of the accused.

scholarly journals Prace nad kodyfikacją prawa karnego procesowego w Polsce w latach 1919–1928

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 37-50
Author(s):  
Józef Koredczuk
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Main Role ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
State Administration ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Polish Code ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

In his contribution, the author presents the work on the codification (initially on the Act) of procedural criminal law in Poland in the years 1919–1928. Those works were initially led by the Criminal Department of the Codification Committee, and then by the Criminal Proceedings Section of the Codification Commission. The first period of the work on the criminal procedure law was characterized by some disputes between the members of the Department, i.e. supporters of the classical school (E. Krzymuski) vs. the sociological school (J. Makarewicz), the discussion aiming at defining the relationship of procedural criminal law and substantive criminal law. The work on the draft law was carried out faster after the appointment (on 16 July 1920) of the Criminal Proceedings Section, which in 1924 published the first version of the draft criminal law bill. E. Krzymuski, A. Mogilnicki, Z. Rymowicz and E.S. Rappaport had played the main role in the development of the project. After a very deep criticism in the columns of Gazeta Administracji i Policji Państwowej [The Gazette of State Administration and Police], Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny [The legal, economic and sociological movement] and Palestra [The bar], the project was rejected. Only the second version of the bill prepared in 1925-1926, re-worked by the committee composed of W. Makowski, A. Mogilnicki and S. Śliwiński (appointed by the Minister of Justice), became the basis for the President of the Republic of Poland to adopt the first Polish Code of Criminal Procedure of 19 March 1928.

scholarly journals Towards an American Model of Criminal Process: The Reform of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Roclawska ◽  
Adam Bulat
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
American Model ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Polish Code

Abstract In September 2013, the Polish Parliament passed an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The legislators decided to expand a number of adversarial elements present in current Polish criminal proceedings. When these changes come into effect (July 1, 2015), Polish criminal procedure will be similar to American regulations, in which the judge’s role is to be an impartial arbitrator, not an investigator. The authors of the article describe the meaning of the principle of adversarial trial in Poland. They also emphasized relations between this principle and the concept of “material truth”. The changes established by the amendment are shown in perspective of the American definition of adversarial trial. The authors analyze the reform and attempt to predict the problems with new regulations in practice.

scholarly journals Suspect detention during the pre-investigation proceedings in Republic of Serbia

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 68-84
Author(s):  
Ljubica Prica
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right ◽  
Investigation Procedure

According to the Article 27, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Republic of Serbia (2006), the right to liberty is guaranteed to all domestic and foreign persons, which is derived from the constitutional provision that the holder of this right is "everyone". Everyone has the right to move freely, to settle in Republic of Serbia, to leave it, and to return to it. This freedom may be restricted by law if it is necessary to conduct a criminal proceedings, protect the public order and peace, prevent the spread of infectious diseases, or defense of Republic of Serbia (the Constitution of Republic of Serbia, 2006, the Article 39, paragraph 2). Deprivation of liberty is allowed only for legal reasons and in the procedure provided by law. Both minors and adults may be deprived of their liberty. A person who has not reached the age of 14 is considered a child, and he/she cannot be deprived of liberty in the pre-investigation procedure because, according to our legal regulations, children are not subject to criminal liability. The aim of this paper will be to explore the concept of deprivation of liberty by arresting and/or detaining a suspect in the pre-investigation procedure according to the criminal procedure legislation of Republic of Serbia, with examples from previous practice and a proposal for some legal improvements.

scholarly journals Bezpośredni skutek „dyrektywy obrończej” w polskim procesie karnym

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 23-50
Author(s):  
Kacper Oleksy
Keyword(s):  
Direct Effect ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Polish Code ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access ◽  
Union Directive

As of 27 November 2017 the deadline passed by which the European Union Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer should have been implemented by the Member States in their respective legal systems. Poland completed the said responsibility only ostensibly, for no legal norms which regulate the standard of the right to formal defence contained in Polish Code of Criminal Procedure have been amended. This very situation makes it necessary to consider whether the norms of the directive in question may cause the so-called direct effect in Poland’s domestic legal system, particularly: whether prosecuted individuals may directly invoke the directive in order to, based on its content, seek the assistance of a lawyer in the course of criminal proceedings. Therefore, it stands to reason that, at least in relation to some of the competences envisioned in the directive, such eventuality exists, whereas in remainder of the cases the judicial bodies are obliged to interpret the respective norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure in pro-EU manner, thereby elevating the standard of right to formal defence present in Polish criminal proceedings. Nonetheless, the real transposition of this directive should be postulated, since invoking its direct effect cannot exempt a Member State from implementing it in accordance with EU treaties as a way to harmonize domestic legal systems.

scholarly journals Pozycja pokrzywdzonego w świetle nowelizacji Kodeksu postępowania karnego z 19 lipca 2019 r.

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 127-148
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Limańska ◽  
Marta Pustuła
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
Polish Code

This article addresses some amendments of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure in so far as they affect the position of the injured party. The Act of 19 July 2019 amending the Polish Code of Criminal Code provides for a number of changes relating to that participant of criminal proceedings. The paper deals with the extension of the time limit within which it is possible to withdraw a motion to prosecute, changes to the so-called subsidiary complaint, setting a deadline for questioning the injured under Articles 185a and 185c of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure or serving the injured party with an order to pay (injunctive judgment) alongside the instructions on how to appeal against the judgment and simultaneously file a statement that the injured will act in the capacity of a subsidiary prosecution counsel. The analysis is aimed to establish whether those changes have led to the strengthening or weakening of the position of the injured party.

10. Public interest immunity, closed material procedures, and disclosure

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
National Security ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Public ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Civil Cases

This chapter, which deals with public interest immunity (PII) and disclosure in criminal and civil cases, first explains exclusion of evidence on the grounds of the PII doctrine in relation to the public interest in non-disclosure of documents. It then considers disclosure in criminal proceedings under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003) and the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014 as well as disclosure in civil proceedings under the Civil Procedure Rules. The chapter also examines areas of public interest that are covered by possible PII claims, including national security, defence and foreign policy, protection of children, the identity of police informers, and confidential records held by public bodies. It concludes with an outline of the Closed Material Procedures (CMPs).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document