Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Foreword

Foreword

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

This monograph has been prepared to analyse the legal history, legal theory, international (comparative) aspects and Hungarian aspects of evidence in criminal proceedings. Despite the wide range of analytical aspects, I will obviously analyse only those phases of criminal proceedings in which procedural acts related to the taking of evidence can be discussed. On this basis, I will deal with the preparatory, investigative and inquiry phases, the trial preparation phase, the first and second instance court proceedings, the question of the ‘novaum’ which gives rise to a retrial, and the rules of evidence relevant to the specific proceedings.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

I would like to note that numerous monographs, scientific articles and dissertations have been written on this topic in the past decades, at both national and international levels.1 Works on the theory of proof can be thematised as follows:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  1. Works dealing with the analysis of the characteristics of evidence systems from a legal history perspective;2
  2. Studies dealing with the existing body of rules of evidence, focusing on the dogmatic approach to the basic concepts of evidence and the grammatical interpretation of legal provisions;3
  3. These works deal with a subfield of evidence in a monograph-like manner through the presentation of the rules of the substantive law;4
  4. Studies on the criminological context of evidence.5
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Whatever the method of investigation, dealing with the issue of proof always seems justified. According to Tibor Király, "“criminal procedure is a power that can wipe people out of existence, deprive them of their freedom, their property, their honour. In the course of criminal proceedings, war can be waged even in peacetime, [during which] the malice, error or ignorance of judges can have tragic consequences. This is the reason why the conduct of criminal proceedings is confined within legal norms [and] seeks to establish rules that suppress individual bias, passion […], revenge and exclude error.”6

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The Act XC of 2017 on Criminal Procedure (hereinafter: CPC) naturally raises a number of questions that the Hungarian literature has not yet been able to reflect on sufficiently due to the short time available. This is particularly true for the evidentiary procedure, as there have been significant changes in its coordination. In any case, evidence is an area of jurisprudence which, particularly as the number of cases has gradually increased, has been a constant concern for a large proportion of the legal profession. In this context, we should think in particular of practising lawyers, since a significant part of the activities of legal practitioners is related to activities of an evidential nature.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In the light of the above, the statement that the evidentiary procedure is the “alpha and omega” of the criminal process, regardless of the stage of the case, is true. Decisions on the outcome of a case are based on the procedural acts carried out in the course of the taking of evidence and on the knowledge and factual data manifested in them.7 It is no coincidence that the principles of evidence are included in the introductory provisions of the European procedural codes and the Hungarian Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that evidence is of decisive importance not only in establishing the basis for a decision on the criminal liability of the accused, but also in maintaining the authority of the judicial system.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Certainly, “it says a lot about a society, a state and the actors of justice how they relate to the failures of this activity.”8 The media, of course, now has the specialised apparatus to draw attention to possible professional errors, such as superficial, formulaic and routine discretion of the judicial authorities, shortcomings of the indictment, unadulterated expert opinions, contradictory testimonies of witnesses, or even misleading circumstantial evidence.9 Wrongful convictions ("judicial murder”) can undermine public confidence in the justice system, particularly when the crime has an extremely serious outcome (e.g. mass disaster, particularly significant property damage).10 In such cases, the public does not accept arguments pointing out that “it is human to err” or that “judges work from a set of fabrications.” It is therefore necessary to keep under constant review the legal rules and practical situations that jeopardise the correct determination of the facts. 11

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

I would note that there have been several recent studies that have attempted to relativise the significance of judicial errors by attributing them to the judge as an individual rather than to the state as a whole.12 However, this view is mistaken, as it is clear that evidentiary activities are not only carried out by the courts, but also by investigating authorities and prosecutors. The process of taking evidence is therefore a collective cognition process which “cannot, even with the most correct and strict formalities, do without the integrity and honest work of those who work in the daily administration of justice […] there is no system of control which can do without the individual integrity of those who administer justice.” 13

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

For the above reasons, in this study I want to draw attention not only to the flaws in legislation, but also to the flaws in the practice of law enforcement. As Anatole France said, “laws are not so much good or bad in themselves as in the way they are applied.” 14

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

I would like to express my gratitude to my father, Dr. László Bérces, who shared his decades of experience as a lawyer and university lecturer, and to my mother, Gabriella Reisz and my wife, Karolina Spergel, who, through their patience and dedicated support, allowed me to spend as much research time as possible writing this book. I would like to express my special thanks to Prof. Dr. Mihály Tóth, who gave me his professional guidance and useful advice.
1 Tremmel takes a critical view of the content of the Anglo-Saxon literature apparatus: in his view, although works on proofs are constantly appearing in these countries, they are in fact “not so much works of scientific demand, which raise abstract questions and answer them in depth, but rather practice-oriented explanations for the public, the layman […], and for them too, in a way that is understandable to the general public.” The author also notes that in continental literature there is “a much more pronounced tendency towards scientific, not to say philosophical, works…”. In Flórián Tremmel: Bizonyítékok a büntetőeljárásban. [Evidence in criminal proceedings] Budapest–Pécs, Dialóg Campus, 2006. 38.
2 E.g. Attila Badó – János Bóka: Ártatlanul halálra ítéltek. Az amerikai igazságszolgáltatás tévedései. [Innocently sentenced to death. Failures of the American judiciary] Budapest, Nyitott Könyv, 2003.
3 E.g. Imre Zlinszky: A bizonyítás elmélete a polgári peres eljárásban. [The Theory of Evidence in Civil Procedure.] Budapest, 1875.
4 See Lajos Nagy: Tanúbizonyítás a büntetőperben. [Witness evidence in criminal proceedings] Budapest, 1985.
5 E.g. Imre Kertész: A kihallgatási taktika lélektani alapjai. [The psychological foundations of interrogation tactics.] Budapest, KJK, 1965.
6 Tibor Király: A védelem és a védő büntető ügyekben. [The defence and the defence counsel in criminal cases.] Budapest, KJK, 1962. 121.
7 The 1967 Commentary already considered the evidentiary procedure as the most important part of criminal procedure. Lőrinczy, 1998. 1.
8 Péter Hack: Az igazságszolgáltatás kudarcai. [The failures of justice.] In Csaba Fenyvesi (ed.): Jubileumi tanulmányok. [Jubilee Studies.] Budapest–Debrecen–Pécs, Hungarian Criminal Law Society, 2011, 35.
9 Hack (2011) ibid. p. 43.
10 According to Tremmel, it is problematic that an international survey and analysis of “judicial killings” has not yet been carried out. In Tremmel (2006) ibid. 38.
11 Károly Bárd: Evidence systems and the establishment of the truth in criminal cases. In Csaba Fenyvesi (ed.): Jubileumi tanulmányok. [Jubilee Studies.] ibid. 29.
12 E.g. Merkl’s view that “in principle, an erroneous act, fraught with legal defects, could not be considered as justice and imputed to the state.” Tibor Király: Büntetőítélet a jog határán. [Criminal conviction on the border of law.] Budapest, KJK, 1972. 217.
13 Lőrinczy (1998) ibid. 1.
14 Anatole France: A bíróról és az igazságszolgáltatásról. [On the judge and justice.] In Tóth Mihály (ed.): Büntető eljárásjogi olvasókönyv. [Reading book on criminal procedure.] Budapest, Osiris, 2003. 105.
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