Hearing a Witness Pursuant to Art. 185 of the CCP and an Assurance of Defendant’s Rights of Defense. Comments on the Verdict of the Supreme Court of June 29, 2022, III KK 202/21

Marek Skwarcow
{"title":"Hearing a Witness Pursuant to Art. 185 of the CCP and an Assurance of Defendant’s Rights of Defense. Comments on the Verdict of the Supreme Court of June 29, 2022, III KK 202/21","authors":"Marek Skwarcow","doi":"10.26399/iusnovum.v16.4.2022.38-m.skwarcow","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summary The aim of the article is to show the problems related to the application of interviewing an adult victim in cases of offenses against his sexual freedom, which evidentiary activity is regulated in Art. 185 of the CCP. This provision has to reconcile two opposing reasons – protection of the aggrieved party and avoidance double victimization and providing the accused with a guarantee of his interests, especially the rights of a defense lawyer to participate in questioning. A great contribution to making considerations on the meaning of the commented regulation is the judgment of the Supreme Court of June 29, 2022, in the case III KK 202/21, which was issued after the recognition of the cassation appeal of the defender of the accused. In the case, the Supreme Court, weighing the cassation charges, decided that refusal by the appellate court of the request for rehearing the aggrieved party, in a situation where their hearing in the course of the proceedings preparatory proceedings took place not only in the absence of the accused, but also under the absence of his counsel constitutes a significant violation of the accused’s right to defense. This is because the accused has no way of getting filed in this mode, the statements should be verified from the point of view of their credibility. The ruling of the Supreme Court should be considered as accurate, especially as it was reached in extending the right to use the assistance of a defense lawyer also in relation to the person as to which has not yet been ordered to present the charges but do exist while for it there are reasonable grounds that, as a result of the hearing, it will become a suspect.","PeriodicalId":33501,"journal":{"name":"Ius Novum","volume":"16 1","pages":"73 - 89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ius Novum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26399/iusnovum.v16.4.2022.38-m.skwarcow","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Summary The aim of the article is to show the problems related to the application of interviewing an adult victim in cases of offenses against his sexual freedom, which evidentiary activity is regulated in Art. 185 of the CCP. This provision has to reconcile two opposing reasons – protection of the aggrieved party and avoidance double victimization and providing the accused with a guarantee of his interests, especially the rights of a defense lawyer to participate in questioning. A great contribution to making considerations on the meaning of the commented regulation is the judgment of the Supreme Court of June 29, 2022, in the case III KK 202/21, which was issued after the recognition of the cassation appeal of the defender of the accused. In the case, the Supreme Court, weighing the cassation charges, decided that refusal by the appellate court of the request for rehearing the aggrieved party, in a situation where their hearing in the course of the proceedings preparatory proceedings took place not only in the absence of the accused, but also under the absence of his counsel constitutes a significant violation of the accused’s right to defense. This is because the accused has no way of getting filed in this mode, the statements should be verified from the point of view of their credibility. The ruling of the Supreme Court should be considered as accurate, especially as it was reached in extending the right to use the assistance of a defense lawyer also in relation to the person as to which has not yet been ordered to present the charges but do exist while for it there are reasonable grounds that, as a result of the hearing, it will become a suspect.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第185条听取证人陈述和被告辩护权的保证。对最高法院2022年6月29日裁决的评论,KK 202/21
摘要本文的目的是说明在侵犯性自由的案件中与成年受害者面谈的相关问题,《中华人民共和国刑法》第185条规定了性自由的证据活动。这项规定必须调和两个对立的理由——保护受害方和避免双重受害,并为被告的利益,特别是辩护律师参与讯问的权利提供保障。最高法院于2022年6月29日对第三案KK 202/21作出判决,这是在承认被告辩护人的最高上诉后发布的,对考虑所评论法规的含义做出了重大贡献。在本案中,最高法院在权衡最高上诉指控后决定,上诉法院拒绝重审受害方的请求,因为在诉讼程序筹备过程中,他们的听证会不仅在被告缺席的情况下进行,但在其律师缺席的情况下也构成了对被告辩护权的重大侵犯。这是因为被告无法以这种方式提交诉讼,因此应从其可信度的角度对陈述进行核实。最高法院的裁决应被视为准确的,特别是在将使用辩护律师协助的权利扩大到尚未被命令提出指控但确实存在的人时,因为有合理的理由表明,由于听证会,该人将成为嫌疑人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Paradox of Democratic Strengthening: Criminalisation of Political Terrorism as a Legal Discrediting Mechanism The Attack on the Protected Legal Interest: A Criminalisation Principle and an Element of the Criminal Offence? Amendment to the Rights and Obligations of a Journalist in Act: Press Law from the Perspective of Conscience Clause Key Elements of the Criminal Law Conflict System, with Special Reference to Spanish Criminal Law On the Concept of an Appellate Measure in a Criminal Proceeding
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1