Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Chapter IX. Evidence in the preparatory and investigative stages
›
9.2. Terminology issues in relation to the new CPC

9.2. Terminology issues in relation to the new CPC

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

One of the most important innovations of the current Act is that – compared to Act XIX of 1998 – it establishes different procedural stages for different levels of suspicion of a criminal offence. On this basis,three separate phases are distinguished:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • preparatory procedure: an optional procedure carried out prior to an investigation to establish suspicion of a criminal offence;
  • investigation: an investigative procedure to obtain evidence or to carry out acts of evidence in connection with a suspected offence, with the aim of establishing reasonable suspicion (the last procedural step is the interrogation of suspects);
  • investigation: an investigative procedure aimed at determining the further course of action to be taken in the case of a well-founded suspicion of a criminal offence, the primary purpose of which is to establish the conditions for a charge or to decide on the application of other procedural measures provided for by the Criminal Code.
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

With the introduction of this trichotomous system, legislators have taken the position that the investigating authorities and the prosecution offices are not only responsible for collecting evidence, but also for selecting the facts that can be used as evidence.1 Those authorities must therefore necessarily carry out a preliminary assessment and weighing up of the evidence, which can also be regarded as part of the taking of evidence. The short-term aim of this change in the structure of the judicial system is to provide a basis for the prosecution and the long-term aim is to prepare the judicial process to an appropriate level. The question is: (1) How much easier is it for criminal judges when they have to examine a comprehensive investigation of thousands of pages? Does not the – longer – interval between the time of the offence and the time of the trial undermine the quality of the evidence in court proceedings? I believe that it will be possible to answer these questions in the next 20-30 years.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

What is certain is that – in principle – the introduction of preparatory procedures may raise questions of guarantees and the rule of law, since they involve investigative measures (e.g. the use of disguised means) against specific persons without there being any suspicion of criminality. However, in the face of these criticisms, it should be noted that Act XIX of 1998 did not exclude preparatory work by the authorities prior to the suspicion of a criminal offence. On the contrary, from a safeguarding point of view, the current CPC makes these preliminary procedures much clearer, since it specifies precisely the type of evidentiary activity that may be carried out in the context of such procedures.2 On the other hand, in my opinion, the preparatory procedure should also be considered part of the investigation, since it clearly involves investigative acts (e.g. undercover purchases). Therefore the rules of the preparatory procedure should have been regulated – in a uniform manner – in the section on investigations.
1 This point of view is reinforced by the legal rules that provide for the possibility of extending the investigation deadlines – essentially without any purpose.
2 Be. 341. §
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