(Il)Legal evidence in criminal procedures in the case law of the Supreme Court of Cassation in 2019 and 2020

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.

Normatywne ujęcie czynności operacyjno-rozpoznawczych w aspekcie dowodu nielegalnego

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.

INSTITUTE OF EXCLUSION FROM EVIDENCE AT THE STAGE OF PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATION: CURRENT PROBLEMS AND WAYS TO SOLVE THEM

The study focuses on both theoretical and applied aspects of evidentiary law. The subject of this study is the legal institution of admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings, as well as the legal mechanism for declaring evidence inadmissible. The author relies on the constitutional postulate (Part 3 of Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine) according to which the accusation cannot be based on evidence obtained illegally, as well as on assumptions. Based on this constitutional imperative, it is stated that the prosecution has no right to form charges and go to court if the accusation is based on illegal evidence or subjective assumptions, and emphasizes that the subject who forms the prosecution must operate on legal evidence. Thus, a legal contradiction is revealed between the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine and Part 2 of Article 23 of the CPC of Ukraine regarding the legal nature of evidence in the pre-trial investigation. Given that according to the domestic legal structure, factual data must be recognized as evidence at the stage of pre-trial investigation, there is a legal need to guarantee the right of a person to a fair trial, the introduction of a clear mechanism for verifying factual data for admissibility at the stage of pre-trial investigation. The author argues that such a mechanism should provide effective tools for self-control and neutralization of illegal sources of factual data by both the prosecuting authorities and the court, during the implementation of judicial control over pre-trial investigation in making key decisions to restrict guaranteed rights and freedoms. Keywords: evidence, accusation, suspicion, admissibility of evidence, exclusion from evidence.