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.

scholarly journals Procedural and legal status of the injured party according to the new criminal procedure code of the Republic of Serbia

Temida ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-119
Author(s):  
Momcilo Grubac
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Proceeding ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Status ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

In this article the author is critically analyzing certain solutions of the new Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Serbia from 2011 which consider the injured party and their rights in the criminal proceeding. He states that unlike the previous ones, this Code does not improve the status of the injured party but makes it even worse. The author particularly claims that the legislator yet again failed to establish the right of the injured party to be efficiently compensated in the event of a serious offense from a special fund and immediately after the crime has been committed, but prior to the end of the criminal proceeding. In the provision of the Code which states that the injured party may take over the prosecution and become a prosecutor replacing the Public Prosecutor (subsidiary prosecutor) only if the Public Prosecutor withdraws after having confirmed the indictment, however not in the cases of rejection of criminal charges or withdrawal from the prosecution in the previous proceeding, the author sees not only the limitation of the rights of the injured party, but also jeopardy of the public interest. This is due to the fact that, freed from a threat of the subsidiary accusation by the injured party, the Public Prosecutor has gained an absolute and uncontrolled monopoly over the initiation of criminal proceeding. According to the author, the subject of the proceedings will not have any substantial use from some rights which the new Code assigns to the injured party (for example the right to appeal against the judgment on the adjudicated property claim). In conclusion, the author stresses out that in spite of his objections against certain provisions in the Code, the legal status of the injured party is more favorable in the criminal law of Serbia then in many other countries.

Silence with caution: The right to silence in police investigations in Belgium

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442110283
Author(s):  
Ashlee Beazley ◽  
Fien Gilleir ◽  
Michele Panzavolta ◽  
Joëlle Rozie ◽  
Miet Vanderhallen
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Public ◽  
Digital Devices ◽  
Police Investigations ◽  
Right To Silence ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

This article is about the right to remain silent within Belgium. Although the right has always been considered applicable, both the courts and parliament have historically demonstrated a disinclination to define or engage with this. The right to silence is now formally recognised in the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure, albeit with the classic distinction between those who are not (yet) accused of a crime and those who are formal suspects: while all enjoy the right not to incriminate themselves, only formal suspects in Belgium enjoy the explicit right to remain silent. Accordingly, whilst no one may be obliged to assist with their own conviction or be forced to co-operate with the authorities, it remains unclear how far the right not to cooperate effectively stretches. The case law seems to be moving, albeit slowly, in the direction of confining this right within narrower borders, particularly by excluding its applicability with regard to the unlocking and decryption of digital devices. This is not, however, the only idiosyncrasy concerning the right to silence in Belgium. Among those also addressed in this article are: the lack of caution on the right to remain silent given to arrested persons immediately following their deprivation of liberty (an absence striking for its apparent breach of Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information in criminal proceedings); the possible inducement to breach the right to silence via the discretionary powers of the public prosecutor to offer a reduction or mitigation in sentence; the obscurity surrounding the definition of ‘interrogation’ and the consequences of this on both the caution and the obtaining of statements; and the extent to which judges can draw adverse inferences from the right to silence. The question remains: is the right to silence currently protected enough?

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 Implementation of Extraordinary Review (Pk) For the Public Prosecutors after the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 33/Puu-Xiv/2016

2021 ◽  
Vol 04 (06) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rahmadianto Andra ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Right

The background of this paper is inspired and triggered to observe and study the legal uncertainty between the public prosecutor and the convict/his heirs regarding the authority to submit a PK Application as regulated in Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The article states "the right of the public prosecutor" to apply for a PK application. However, what is expected by the Petitioner's wife is that Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code can be interpreted in this way, "PK applications can only be filed by the convicted person or their heirs". This condition was exacerbated by the issuance of the Constitutional Court decision Number 33/PUU-XIV/ 2016 regarding "the right of the public prosecutor to file a PK application in a criminal case". This study aims to determine the application of extraordinary legal remedies by the public prosecutor and the implications of implementing these extraordinary remedies. The research method used is normative legal research. The results showed the application of extraordinary PK legal remedies for the public prosecutor after the Constitutional Court decision Number 33/PUU-XIV/2016, had direct implications for the Petitioner and his family. This implication is detrimental to the Petitioners' constitutional rights based on Article 28G of the 1945 Constitution because the protection of personal, family, honor and dignity has clearly been lost. It is better if the Constitutional Court reaffirms the legal principles in the article through constitutional interpretation which is an integral part that is not separate from the article in question and is able to provide fair legal certainty.

Specific Features of Criminal Proceeding Regarding Criminal Misdemeanours

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viacheslav V Vapniarchuk ◽  
Inna L Bespalko ◽  
Maryna G Motoryhina
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Scientific Investigation ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Proper Understanding ◽  
Basic Approach ◽  
Criminal Proceeding ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Court Proceedings

Abstract The urgency of the problem stated in the article is conditioned by amendments to the criminal procedural legislation, which in a new way regulate the procedure of criminal proceedings concerning criminal offences. The aim of the article is to investigate the procedure for conducting criminal proceedings for criminal offences and to make suggestions for improving its regulatory framework. The basic approach to the study of this problem was to conduct a critical analysis of the rules of the current criminal procedural legislation, which regulate criminal proceedings for criminal offences, and to express views on rules’ proper understanding and application. Based on the analysis of the features of the normative regulation of criminal proceedings concerning criminal offences, the publication comments on a number of norms of the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate both pre-trial investigation of criminal offences in the form of enquiries and court proceedings against them; approaches to their elimination have been proposed. The materials of the article represent both theoretical and practical values. They can be used for further scientific investigation of the features of criminal proceedings regarding criminal offences, as well as for the proper understanding and implementation of law enforcement criminal proceedings.

scholarly journals PROSECUTOR'S REFUSAL TO CHARGE

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
И.Д. Мальцагов ◽  
Х.И. Магомадов
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right To Refuse

В статье рассматривается вопрос о возможности отказа от обвинения на стадии предварительного слушания. Указано, чем отказ от обвинения отличается от изменения обвинения. Авторы анализируют возможные варианты отказа прокурора от обвинения, дают классификацию видов и оснований такого отказа. Решается вопрос о том, в какой форме возможен отказ прокурора от обвинения, обосновывается необходимость согласования позиции государственного обвинителя с прокурором, утвердившим обвинительное заключение и поручившим поддержание обвинения. Дается оценка соблюдению прав потерпевшего при реализации государственным обвинителем права на отказ от обвинения. Приведена возможная структура речи государственного обвинителя в судебных прениях при отказе от обвинения. Предлагается внести в уголовно-процессуальное законодательство Российской Федерации некоторые изменения. The article discusses the possibility of abandoning the charge at the preliminary hearing stage. It is indicated how the refusal of the charge differs from the change of the charge. The authors analyze the possible options for the prosecutor's refusal to charge, give a classification of the types and grounds for such refusal. The question of the form in which the prosecutor's refusal from the prosecution is possible is resolved, and the need to coordinate the position of the public prosecutor with the prosecutor who approved the indictment and entrusted the prosecution with maintaining the prosecution is justified. An assessment is made of the observance of the rights of the victim in the exercise by the public prosecutor of the right to refuse to charge. The possible structure of the speech of the public prosecutor in the judicial debate when rejecting the charge is given. It is proposed to make some changes to the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Legal Standing of Victims in Criminal Proceedings: Wickham v Magistrate, Stellenbosch 2017 1 BCLR 121 (CC)

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Lindelwa Beaulender Mhlongo ◽  
Buhle Angelo Dube
Keyword(s):  
General Public ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Public ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
Legal Standing ◽  
Victim Impact Statement ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exercise Of Discretion

In late 2016, the Constitutional Court delivered judgment in a case, Wickham v Magistrate, Stellenbosch 2017 1 BCLR 121 (CC), involving Wayne Anthony Wickham (an aggrieved father and applicant in this case), who appealed against the decision of the Magistrate's Court in which he was denied the opportunity to hand up a victim impact statement. The thrust of his application was that his rights, as a victim of the crime in which his son was negligently killed by the fourth respondent, had been violated, and that this raised an arguable point of law of general public importance. The respondents, however, argued that the applicant lacked standing as the dominus litis in culpable homicide cases is the public prosecutor, and not the relatives of the deceased, or the victim. The case turned on whether the exercise of discretion by the Magistrate in denying Wickham the right to be heard was performed correctly; and whether a non-party to criminal proceedings could make an application for the review of the Magistrate's conduct. The article seeks to interrogate the rights of victims in criminal proceedings and aptly poses the following question: Do victims of crimes have a locus standi to be part of criminal proceedings?

scholarly journals Waiver of a Counsel (for the Defense) in a Criminal Procedure

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 29-32
Author(s):  
Vladimir D. Postanyuk ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Specific Time ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Relevant Article ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Complete Rejection ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

Provision to the suspect and defendant’s constitutional right to protection is an essential principle of criminal proceedings (article 16 of the code). In the code there are some articles that illuminate the mechanism of participation of the defender in criminal proceedings, this includes: defining the range of persons who can be advocates, fixing specific time, the participation of counsel in the case, an order of protection and other issues. But it is the question of the implementation of the right of the accused (suspect) to refuse to defend and participate in the case of a lawyer that is of fundamental practical and legal importance. There are two possibilities that should be distinguished: on the one hand, complete rejection of the defender in general, and on the other hand, rejection of a specific defender. The refusal of a lawyer in general is provided with a number of restrictions, which are listed in the relevant article of the criminal procedure code. in all other cases, the rule applies that it is possible to refuse to help a lawyer at any time during the criminal proceedings. This article is devoted to the consideration of these issues.

scholarly journals THE STATE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH OF LEGAL AID IN UKRAINE IN THE SCIENCE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

2020 ◽  
pp. 300-308
Author(s):  
О. В. Мартовицька
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The State ◽  
Theoretical Research ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Important Place ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Right

In the article, it has been emphasized the urgency of the issue of the state of legal aid research in Ukraine in the science of criminal procedure. It has been argued that the study of any issue cannot be carried out without the use of certain methods to cover the selected issue, and developed scientific approaches to its solution. It is no exception to the rule of legal aid research in Ukraine. Emphasis has been placed on the fact that a large number of scientific papers are devoted to the study of such an integral element of the institute of legal aid in Ukraine as free legal aid. It has been determined that the institute of legal aid is repeatedly studied both at the general theoretical level and in the branch procedural law. These developments allow us to develop common approaches to determining the nature and significance of legal aid, and the procedure for its provision depending on the type of process. It has been found that the criminal procedure legislation is imperfect, and thorough theoretical research to define the concept, nature and content of the right to legal aid in criminal proceedings, the place of this institution in the national mechanism of human rights and freedoms in Ukraine, and receiving legal aid, the mechanism of realization of this constitutional right by the subjects of the process at its various stages are absent or do not take into account the current changes in the legislation governing the provision of legal aid in general and in criminal proceedings in particular. It is determined that the methodology of legal aid research in Ukraine is primarily the integrated use of methods of both empirical and theoretical knowledge, as well as general methods of research on the formation and development of legal aid in Ukraine, ensuring and implementing the right to legal aid in general and in criminal proceedings in particular. Therefore, the methodology of legal aid research in Ukraine is represented not only by a set of research methods, but also by a system of scientific developments, which should be studied with the help of these methods in order to find a new way to solve the scientific problem. And a very important place in the system of such scientific works is given to textbooks, manuals and methodical recommendations, instructions.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document