Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Chapter IX. Evidence in the preparatory and investigative stages
›
9.1. About the investigative phase in general
›
9.1.3. The importance of investigative interviews

9.1.3. The importance of investigative interviews

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Interrogation is the most common and most important investigative act. This is because, subject to the formalities and safeguards laid down in the Criminal Code, it is a means of providing personal evidence that enables the suspect, victim or witness to obtain the best knowledge of the crime.1 In general, therefore, interrogation is a formal investigative act in which authorities attempt to obtain information or data from the person being interrogated in order to investigate the crime.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The primary objective of interrogations is to obtain the interviewee’s point of view or memories of the historical facts, which requires the construction of a complete interrogation tactic. Interrogation tactics are the part of criminal tactics which (1) contains tactical rules for the organisation, planning, conduct, recording, on-the-spot monitoring and evaluation of interrogations in accordance with the requirements of criminal procedure, in order to ensure the most effective conduct of interrogations and the discovery of the truth;2 (2) contains tactical recommendations and other requirements for the organisation, planning, conduct, recording and (in-process) control of interrogations, thus ensuring their effectiveness.3

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The secondary purpose of the interviews is to ensure that the information obtained can be used as evidence at a later stage of the procedure. In order to achieve this objective, the interrogations must be conducted within the legal framework set by the CPC.4 The prohibitions on evidence also apply to interrogations, so that statements obtained in the course of an unlawful procedure cannot be considered as evidence and pose a serious threat to the successful conduct of the proceedings and to the number of statements that can be considered credible.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The interviews can be structured into the following phases:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  1. Preparation phase:
    • personal details of the person to be questioned – the accused or a witness – (e.g. marital status, criminal record, etc.);
    • reviewing any case files that may already be available;
    • pre-defining the purpose of the interrogation and the questions to be asked (preparation of an interrogation plan);
    • choosing the place and time of the interview;
    • the issuing of summonses.
  2. Maturity phase:
    • the recording of personal data;
    • informing the person questioned of his or her rights and obligations;
    • the taking of testimony on the historical facts;
    • if there is no obstacle for the person giving evidence, asking further questions to the person being questioned;
    • recording, monitoring and evaluating the results.
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Based on the results,the interview can be:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • completely conflict-free: in this case, the interrogator finds the testimony fully credible and accepts it as being in full agreement with the truth;
  • partially conflict-free: in this case, the interrogator considers some parts of the statement to be credible and other parts to be inaccurate or untrue;
  • conflicting: in this case (1) the interrogator does not consider the statement credible because it is inaccurate or completely untrue; (2) the person interrogated refuses to give a statement in whole or in part (e.g. refusal to answer questions or to answer certain questions), or (3) the person interrogated commits a crime by giving a statement;
  • uncertain: in this case, the interrogator cannot decide whether the statement is credible on the basis of the facts that have become known up to that point or on the basis of a comparison of the statements.
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The outcome of the interrogation is of course influenced by a number of other external circumstances, such as the behaviour and level of preparation of the interrogator, the atmosphere of the interrogation (e.g. the location), the difference in age between the interrogator and the person being interrogated, the number of previous interrogations between the same persons, the procedural position of the person being interrogated (e.g. the accused or the witness-victim), the mental state of the person being interrogated, etc.
1 Flórián Tremmel– Csaba Fenyvesi (1998) ibid. 205.
2 Imre Kertész (1965) ibid. 196.
3 Tremmel–Fenyvesi (1998) ibid. 205.
4 For example, a member of the investigating authority may not seek to coerce or threaten the person being questioned into making a confession, etc.
chevron_left
chevron_right
Tartalomjegyzék navigate_next
Keresés a kiadványban navigate_next
A kereséshez, kérjük, lépj be!
Könyvjelzőim navigate_next
A könyvjelzők használatához
be kell jelentkezned.
Jegyzeteim navigate_next
Jegyzetek létrehozásához
be kell jelentkezned.
    Kiemeléseim navigate_next
    Mutasd a szövegben:
    Szűrés:
    Kiemelések létrehozásához
    MeRSZ+ előfizetés szükséges.
      Útmutató elindítása
      delete
      Kivonat
      fullscreenclose
      printsave