Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Chapter I. Paradigm shifts in the development of evidence in universal law
›
1.1. The development of ancient Greek law

1.1. The development of ancient Greek law

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In the rudimentary procedural models of the ancient Greek city-states, in the absence of specific legal provisions, the framework of processes was determined by subjective principles of natural law such as justice and equity. Of this period, the philosophy of justice of Aristotle, which was the first to establish that justice must be in some way related to reality as experienced by the senses, should be highlighted.1 Decisions were made primarily on the basis of customary law, but the legal sources of the period also included laws (nomos) and popular decisions (psephism).2

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The initiation of proceedings and prosecution did not yet fall within the competence of a separate public body, but was, as a rule, open to all citizens for offences which fundamentally damaged the interests of the community (graph).3 The representation of the prosecution was, however, functionally separated according to whether the offence was a community or private offence. In the former case, the prosecution was represented by so-called public prosecutors, in the latter case by the victim himself.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In order to initiate the procedure, the initiating party had to “serve” the summons, which was done by summoning his opponent to appear before the authority in the presence of two witnesses. Subsequently, a special public official decided whether to accept or reject the so-called charge sheet.4 The latter could be due to a lack of legitimacy in the trial or to formal or substantive defects in the accusation.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The initiation of proceedings was conditional on the payment of an advance on costs. The preliminary proceedings could then begin, during which the indictment was posted in the official premises of the prosecuting authority. It contained the essential facts of the case, the proposed sanction and the names of the witnesses. The legal consequences of not attending the preliminary hearing were as follows:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • if the person who brought the action did not appear, the action was terminated: if the action was brought on the basis of a graph, the person who brought the action was also fined a substantial amount and deprived of the right to bring a similar action;
  • if the accused person did not appear – in the absence of an excuse – a conviction was in order.
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

During the preliminary proceedings, evidence was collected and kept by the officer in charge of the proceedings until the day the trial started. In the preliminary proceedings, the accused could also counter-accuse.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The trials were conducted before a panel of judges, based on the principle of co-judges, drawn by lot from a popular court of 6,000 members. This council had to hold a hearing within 30 days of the preparation of the case and issue a decision in just one day. The trial proceeded as follows:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • reading of the indictment;
  • the accused person’s response;
  • the speeches of the parties or of the speakers who have been invited to speak (see speeches);
  • a decision by the Chamber on the guilt of the accused and, if found guilty, on the type and level of the sentence.
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

There was no possibility to appeal – on factual grounds – only to bring an application for revision on the grounds of procedural errors.5
1 Az ítéleti bizonyosság elméleti és gyakorlati kérdései. [Theoretical and practical issues of certainty of judgement.] Kúria Büntető-Közigazgatási-Munkaügyi és Polgári Kollégiumai, Joggyakorlat-Elemző Csoport. [Curia, Criminal-Administrative-Labour and Civil Colleges Case Law Analysis Group.] Budapest, 2017. 12.
2 Katalin Gönczi – Pál Horváth – István Stipta – János Zlinszky: Egyetemes jogtörténet. [Universal legal history.] Budapest, Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó, 1997. 51–52.
3 Károly Kisteleki – István Lővétei – Katalin Nagyné Szegvári – Lajos Rácz – Gábor Schweitzer – Ádám Tóth: Egyetemes állam-és jogtörténet. [Universal History of State and Law.] Budapest, HVG-ORAC, 1998. 85.
4 Rejections were typically due to formal errors. Boglárka Miskolcziné Juhász, Ph.D. thesis, PPKE JÁK, 2015. 13.
5 Miskolcziné (2015) ibid. 13–14.
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