Wniosek o sporządzenie uzasadnienia wyroku sądu I instancji na tle zmian kodeksu postępowania karnego

The author discusses the problems of linking the application for the justification of the judgment with the scope of its appeal against the background of amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The request to prepare in writing and to provide the justification of the judgment is of particular importance in the criminal trial, it opens the way to appeal against the decision. Changes in the regulation, in particular the wording of art. 422 § 2 k.p.k. cause that this activity is even more important to shape the boundaries of the case in the appeal instance than the previous one. Submission of an application for justification of the judgment partly gives the court the power to limit the scope of justification.

Verbalisan Witness Position as Evidence of a Criminal Case

The presence of Constitutional Court Decision Number 65/PUUVIII/2010 expands the meaning of witnesses in Article 1 point 26 of the KUHAP, resulting in the emergence of various interpretations in criminal justice practice concerning the position of verbal witness testimony as evidence. Juridically, the decision creates problems considering that the Criminal Procedure Code or Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) does not recognize verbal witnesses' testimony as evidence. This study examined the position and the strength of verbal witnesses' testimony as evidence in criminal proceedings. After gathering all the data using normative and empirical juridical research, this paper concludes that the testimony of verbal witnesses is grouped in the evidence of guidance in Article 188 Paragraph (1) of the KUHAP because the testimony of verbal witnesses is not primary evidence. After all, its existence is contingent on the judge's willingness to employ it. The strength of proof of testimony of verbal witnesses is that they must satisfy the elements of Article 188 paragraph (1) of the KUHAP, namely the information referred to in the form of events or circumstances concerning a criminal act, as well as conformity with other evidence, as required by Article 188 paragraph (2) of the KUHAP.

A FEW REMARKS REGARDING EVIDENCE FROM THE INTERROGATION OF A WITNESS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SUBJECT OF A COMMUNITY INTERVIEW CONDUCTED IN A CRIMINAL CASE (ARTICLES 214 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE)

The author discusses the role of documentary evidence in the form of the background survey in criminal proceedings. He also examines the possibilities and scope of verification of its content by interviewing as witnesses the person who conducted the evidence and the persons who provided information as part of the background survey. He emphasizes that it is justified in this case – in the context of the principle expressed in Art. 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – different approach to admitting and taking evidence from the testimonies of witnesses on the circumstances covered by the background survey. The article attempts to select typical cases in which it would be advisable to admit evidence from the testimonies of witnesses for the circumstances identified through the background survey.

GROUNDS FOR ANIMAL RESCUE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 7(3) OF THE ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 21 AUGUST 1997 IN REGARD TO THE INSTITUTION OF A COLLISION OF DUTIES UNDER ARTICLE 26 § 5 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

The article discusses the conditions for the emergency receipt of animal from the owner in accordance with Art. 7 sec. 3 of the Act of August 21, 1997 on the protection of animals and indicates the need to enrich them with the premises for excluding criminal liability under Art. 26 § 5 of the Penal Code. The main research problems of the study are the premises of the proper and legal emergency receipt of animal from the owner within the meaning of Art. 7 sec. 3 of the Act, including an indication of when such behaviour is legal and when it is illegal, and a detailed specification of the scope of responsibilities of the person who performs the collection of the animal towards the owner of the received animal. According to Art. 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Art. 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only law enforcement agencies, including the prosecutor, police officers and other bodies authorized by the law, may search the apartment / land. Authorized representatives of a social organization whose statutory purpose is to protect animals do not have this competence, therefore they are required to cooperate with police officers in the scope of searches. The article shows that in the event of the emergency receipt of animal from the owner in accordance with Art. 7 sec. 3 of the Act, in the absence of Police officers and with the opposition of the owner of the apartment / land, there is no violation of the legal interest of protection of the home if the perpetrator acts in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of proportionality underlying Art. 26 § 5 of the Criminal Code.

Submission of Copy of Determination Order Regarding The Provisional Discontinuation of Civil Servants

Law Number 5 of 2014 concerning State Civil Apparatus stipulates that Civil Servants (PNS) who are detained because they are designated as criminal suspects are temporarily dismissed as PNS, but Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) only requires that a copy of the warrant for further detention or detention or a judge's decision be given to the family of the suspect. This study aims to determine and explain the impact of the absence of provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code regarding copies of detention orders to the Civil Service Supervisory Officer on the temporary dismissal of Civil Servants who are detained because they are designated as suspects. The approach method used in this research is normative juridical. The results of this study indicate that the absence of provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code regarding copies of detention warrants to Civil Service Supervisors related to Civil Servants who are detained because they are designated as suspects causes the issuance of Temporary Dismissal Decrees is often late.

Czy zmierzamy w stronę autorytarnego sądowego procesu karnego?

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.

Implementation of Compensation Claim's Mechanism through Pretrial for Error in Persona in the Criminal Justice System

An error in persona in the implementation of the criminal justice system is a type of destructive action by law enforcement officers that can cause harm to someone. The use of authority by investigators to arrest and detain and detention and prosecution by public prosecutors is a concrete form of persona error. This study focused on the mechanism of a compensation claim through pre-trial due to a persona error in implementing the criminal justice system and an impediment to the implementation of the pre-trial judge's decision on the granting of the compensation claim. The method used is normative and empirical juridical research. The results showed that the mechanism of a claim for compensation through pre-trial due to an error in person in implementing the criminal justice system was carried out fundamentally at the formulation stage. These formulations outlined in the Code Of Criminal Procedure (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana/ KUHAP) and Government Regulation Concerning Implementation of The Book of Criminal Procedure Law as a basis for the implementation of pre-trial and the application stage. The statutory factors of Decree of the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia Number: 983 / KMK.01 / 1983 (Keputusan Menteri Keuangan RI Nomor 983/KMK.01/1983) are an impediment in implementing the pre-trial judge's determination of the compensation claim because the regulation governs administrative procedures that are lengthy and involve government agencies.

Judicial Review By Public Prosecutors In Criminal Cases

Law enforcement efforts should begin to consider and make victims as parties who have an interest in the judicial process. Victims of criminal acts so far have not received enough attention in an effort to fight for justice. The things that are considered and considered include legal certainty, expediency and justice. Legal certainty is closely related to the guarantee of protection to the community against arbitrary actions aimed at public order, while expediency is to create the greatest benefit or happiness to the community, while justice is truth, impartiality, can be accounted for and treats every human being at the same time. equal position before the law (equality before the law). Likewise, the judicial review institution as part of an extraordinary effort in enforcing the law should also be based on these three objectives. On the other hand, the unaccommodated or unaccommodated interests of the victims in the legal provisions encourage interpretations that lead to the defence of interests and justice for the victims, even though in the end it is considered contrary to the law. On this basis, reforms or formal legal reforms summarized in the Criminal Procedure Code, especially in the discussion on review, should be carried out immediately. Of course, these reforms must make the Criminal Procedure Code better and able to accommodate various problems that have not been accommodated so far. This new formal legal provision can later annul conflicting legal provisions between PERMA, the Constitutional Court's Decision and so on. In addition, it is hoped that the new KUHAP will also be able to end the pros and cons and confusion regarding the submission of a judicial review that has so far occurred in a criminal justice process.

E-EVIDENCE OF CYBERCRIMINAL ACTIVITIES AS A NEW LEGAL PHENOMENON (BASED ON THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM, 2005)

Today's modern global society is facing an unexpected situation where cybercrimes are becoming more and more complicated, severely violating social order and security. The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Vietnam 2015 has made important amunpredictable endments and supplements to evidence and evidence institutions, which are important institutions on which procedural bodies base to perform their duties and exercise their powers. Most prominently, the regulation of evidence sources which is electronic data, an entirely new source of evidence, is to respond promptly to crimes using high technology. Within the scope of this article, the author focuses on the new points of the CrPC Vietnam 2015 on the source of evidence that is electronic data in high technology crimes. Further the principles of the evidence act has been explained with amendments in regard to electronic evidence. Finally the safeguards and procedure which needs to be adopted by the Vietnamese judiciary in handling electronic evidences.

Promotion of Justice as an Independent Criminal Procedure Function

The article proves the necessity of involving the persons assisting the parties and the Court into criminal proceedings. The author analyzes the promotion of justice as an independent criminal procedure function under Chapter 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which is carried out by both the participants of criminal proceedings and by other subjects of criminal law relations who do not have an independent procedural status. The conducted social and legal analysis made it possible to state that the development of the idea of the rule of law requires individuals to obtain a correct understanding of the organization of the modern society, its development trends, and the necessity of acquiring due legal awareness. The understanding of legal awareness varied throughout the history of our state but what remained unchanged were the ideas that it can be influenced and that it determines the development of law and the law enforcement itself. Citizens with the due level of legal awareness are ready to promote justice, which testifies to their high level of social development, a desire to be involved in law enforcement work, to bring justice and ensure legality of procedural decisions. The author shows that criminal proceedings in Russia require facilitation, but the majority of people are not ready to provide it for a number of reasons, which proves the need for a detailed analysis of promoting justice in the modern Russian criminal process. The conducted research stresses the theoretical and practical inadequacy of the three-part system of criminal procedure functions enshrined in the current Russian criminal procedure legislation. The author examines the possibility of singling out the promotion of justice as an independent criminal procedure institute necessary for making lawful, well-grounded and comprehensive procedural decisions by officials and state bodies. The author concludes that it is necessary to introduce changes in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federations which will foresee the possibility of renaming Chapter 8 of the Code. Besides, having analyzed the concept of «justice», the author presents his position of what should be understood as the promotion of justice.