10.5.3. On prosecution in general. The problem of “prosecutorial certainty”

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The prosecutor’s indictment can be effected by (1) filing the indictment with the court and (2) in the case of a trial, by filing the so-called “brief” required by the Be. According to Bócz, prior to the indictment, “the prosecutor must judge whether the evidence which, in the light of the outcome of the investigation, can be expected to be adduced at trial promises to be a rational argument and whether it will be persuasive to a competent and objective court.”1 The preparation of an indictment is thus a complex logical process in which the prosecutor, on the basis of the facts revealed by the investigation and the available evidence, (1) develops a final position on the possible legal classification and (2) rules out the possibility of suspending and terminating the proceedings.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Some authors deal specifically with the problem of the certainty required for an indictment as a prerequisite for an indictment:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • According to Király, “In a guilty verdict, the judge has to go as far as certainty. The ideal requirement is that the prosecutor should also reach certainty as to the guilt of the accused in the case of an indictment. However, the law does not require the prosecutor to do this, but to prosecute on the basis of reasonable suspicion. In our opinion, this is an objective criterion and the prosecutor must indicate this in the indictment by listing the means of proof. If the law does not require the prosecutor to be absolutely certain, but to have reasonable suspicion, there is room for a degree of doubt. However, the prosecutor may not prosecute if the assessment of the evidence results in the certainty, the inner conviction, that the suspect has not committed a crime or is not criminally liable or guilty.”2
  • According to Gellér’s reasoning, “the substantiality of the accusation cannot mean the same as the degree of proof beyond reasonable doubt of the conviction, but it must exceed the level of reasonable suspicion. This means that the probability of the offence or of the perpetrator’s identity runs through the criminal proceedings, from mere suspicion to reasonable suspicion, through to the prosecutor’s personal conviction, reflected in the indictment, that the evidence is sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt.”3
  • According to Belovics, an indictment must be based on objective facts and on the subjective belief of the prosecutor that the act under investigation is a crime and was committed by the suspect. The author adds that it is not by chance that the prosecutor has autonomous responsibility under the law and the rights and obligations which give rise to that responsibility. It follows from this status that he cannot transfer to the courts the entire responsibility for deciding the case.4
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

According to Bócz, prosecution is appropriate if the answer to the following three questions is yes: “(1) Will the future behaviour of the perpetrator be better if punished now? (2) Will it create unrest in society if we do not prosecute the offence?”5
1 Endre Bócz: Büntetőeljárási jogunk kalandjai. [Adventures in criminal procedural law.] Budapest, Magyar Hivatalos Közlönykiadó, 2006. 139.
2 Tibor Király (2000) ibid. 390–391.
3 Balázs Gellér: A vád törvényességének egyes aspektusai. [Some aspects of the legality of the prosecution.] Jogtudományi Közlöny, 2011/9. 460.
5 Bócz (2006) ibid. 139.
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