Wpływ obrony na zawartość akt sprawy karnej jako warunek pełnej realizacji zasad procesu karnego

Quo vadit processus criminalis : rzeczywistość i wyzwania / redakcja naukowa Radosław Olszewski, Amadeusz Małolepszy. Warszawa : Łódź : Wolters Kluwer ; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2021, s. 191-211.

Mechanisms of elimination of undesired evidence from criminal trial : a comparative approach

Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal 2021, t. 7, nr 1, s. 43-92.

Este artigo pretende apresentar dois modelos de exclusão de provas indesejáveis que operam em ordenamentos continentais e de common law. São analisados os mecanismos de bloqueio de informações antes de se tornaram provas no processo penal, os quais podem ser definidos como instrumentos (soluções) adotadas em um determinado modelo de processo penal que permite a verificação e eventual exclusão de provas inadmissíveis pois definidas como indesejáveis à verificação dos fatos. Com base em uma "perspectiva de modelo”, será descrito o funcionamento desses mecanismos de exclusão (ou bloqueio) de provas indesejáveis nos Estados Unidos e na Inglaterra, na Alemanha, na França, na Polônia e na Itália. Também serão analisados o estágio da eliminação e o tipo de procedimento para aplicar o bloqueio. Analisar-se-á o modo em que a análise atomística e holística da prova atua e as suas consequências. A última parte do texto irá demonstrar como a existência de distintos motivos para a exclusão da prova na forma de ilegalidade, não fiabilidade e irrelevância, a depender da gravidade da violação da lei, podem resultar em diferentes consequências. Isso permitirá verificar se os modelos continentais ou de common law são coerentes e efetivos e se eles atendem ao objetivo almejado de eliminar provas indesejáveis. Nas conclusões, será demonstrado que o árbitro final sobre admissibilidade da prova em ambos os modelos é o julgador e como isso autoriza a ponderação dos interesses legalmente protegidos em cada caso. Assim, também se observará que no modelo continental de exclusão de provas indesejáveis não se pode afirmar que há um mecanismo integralmente desenvolvido para bloquear informações de se tornarem provas no processo penal.

This text presents two models of elimination of undesired evidence that operate in common law and continental law states. It analyses the mechanisms of blocking information from becoming evidence in a criminal trial which can be defined as the procedural instruments (solutions) adopted in a given model of criminal trial that allow for assessment and eventual elimination of inadmissible evidence as deemed to be undesired in the process of fact-finding. On the basis of a „model approach” it will be shown how such mechanisms of elimination (or blocking) of undesired evidence function in the United States and England, Germany, France, Poland and Italy. Also the stage of elimination will be analysed, as well as the type of procedure of applying a blockade. It will be explained in what ways the atomistic and holistic assessment of evidence work and what consequences they have. The last part of the text will show how the rationale for elimination of evidence in the form of illegality, unreliability or relevance, may result in various consequences depending on the seriousness of violation of law. These elements of analysis will allow to examine whether the continental and common law models of elimination of undesired evidence are coherent and effective and whether they allow for achieving the assumed goal of eliminating of undesired evidence. In the conclusions it will be shown that the final arbiter of admissibility of evidence in both procedural models is a judge and how this solution allows for weighting legally protected interests in every case. The argumentation presented in the article will also lead to an observation that in the continental model of elimination of undesired evidence it cannot be said that there is a full-fledged “mechanism” of blocking information from becoming evidence in a criminal trial.

Bezpośrednie stosowanie dyrektywy UE w sprawach karnych : skutki braku implementacji dyrektywy UE

Europejskie gwarancje prawidłowego wymiaru sprawiedliwości w sprawach karnych / redaktorzy Dominika Czerniak, prof. dr hab. Jerzy Skorupka ; autorzy mgr Dominika Czerniak [i 4 pozostałych]. Warszawa : Wydawnictwo C. H. Beck, 2021, s. 73-108.

Materiały z VII Wrocławskiego Seminarium Karnoprocesowego, 2019.

Wystąpienie do państwa członkowskiego Unii Europejskiej o przeprowadzenie czynności dochodzeniowych na podstawie europejskiego nakazu dochodzeniowego

Kodeks postępowania karnego : komentarz / redaktor Jerzy Skorupka ; autorzy Zdzisław Brodzisz [i 16 pozostałych]. Warszawa : Wydawnictwo C. H. Beck, 2021, s. 1615-1650.

Wystąpienie państwa członkowskiego Unii Europejskiej o przeprowadzenie czynności dochodzeniowych na podstawie europejskiego nakazu dochodzeniowego

Kodeks postępowania karnego : komentarz / redaktor Jerzy Skorupka ; autorzy Zdzisław Brodzisz [i 16 pozostałych]. Warszawa : Wydawnictwo C. H. Beck, 2021, s. 1651-1696.

Better to Explain or to Testify? : The Position of the Accused as a Source of Oral Evidence in a Criminal Trial in a Comparative Perspective

Comparative Law Review 2021, t. 27, s. 47-77.

In this article the position of the accused as a source of personal evidence in three different European legal systems: Poland, Germany, and England, will be presented. This analysis will be oriented to understand the way of functioning of the two different models of giving statements of fact by the accused at a criminal trial. The main difference is that in the common law model of criminal trial the accused may only present evidence by testifying as a witness speaking about what happened, whereas in the continental model the accused gives a specific personal type of evidence (that in the Anglo-Saxon literature is rather described as “oral evidence”) that is known as explanations. From this differentiation several consequences arise: among others, the possibility of presenting untruthful explanations and presenting many versions of events in the continental model which have to be assessed by the judges. At the same time, the same right of the accused to silence and not to give incriminating evidence applies in both models of criminal trial – however, in two different shapes and with different types of limitations.

[Book review: Valérie V. Suhr, Rainbow Jurisdiction at the International Criminal Court. Protection of Sexual and Gender Minorities Under the Rome Statute, T.M.C. Asser Press, Springer: 2022, pp. 405]

Polish Yearbook of International Law 2021, t. XLI, s. 277–284.

Admissibility of Evidence Obtained as a Result of Issuing an European Investigation Order in a Polish Criminal Trial

Review of European and Comparative Law 2021, t. 46, nr 3, s. 67-92.

This article analyses the admissibility of evidence gathered by the Polish procedural authorities as a result of issuing an European Investigation Order, on the basis of provisions implemented due to the adoption on the 3th of April 2014 of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters. This Directive created a mechanism that allows for transfer of evidence between EU Member States. In this text the question will be answered how to deal with results of investigative measures that have been legally obtained in the executing state but despite acting in accordance with the legality principle by both states, happen to be illegal in the issuing Member State. Another discussed problem is how the rules of admissibility of evidence obtained from the result of issuing an EIO work in Poland – or at least how they should operate. The second discussed issue thus will refer to the current provisions in force in Poland regulating the method of dealing with evidence obtained abroad – that is also with evidence transferred from other Member States. It will be shown that they are unclear and may lead to undesirable results. In addition, suggested changes in Polish law will be proposed.