Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Chapter V. The Anglo-Saxon system of evidence today
›
5.2. Specialities of the English system
›
5.2.1. Opening of the investigation phase

5.2.1. Opening of the investigation phase

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In England, an investigation can be opened in the following ways:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  1. Based on the police decision: this is the average and most common version, which is of course preceded by a general investigation.1 The decision to charge can also be made by the police, in the case of minor offences, with the proviso that once the accused has been charged, no further questions can be put to the accused without his or her consent.2
  2. On the basis of acts of other public authorities: this allows certain competent public authorities to initiate proceedings in their own capacity, linked to certain types of offences, or to subsequently represent the prosecution (e.g. the Serious Fraud Office in cases of serious fraud).
  3. On the initiative of private agencies: this option, also linked to the type of offence, gives certain agencies the power to initiate or prosecute proceedings (e.g. the RSCPA, the Crown Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals).
  4. Private prosecution of any citizen: this is now rare, and there is a special organisation called the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to limit its legal effect.3
  5. Based on the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service, this organisation also decides whether to take over the prosecution from the police or to continue the case during the trial phase. In particular, the Service will replace the police in prosecution if “it appears to the Service that the importance or difficulty of the case justifies it or it otherwise considers it appropriate to initiate the proceedings.”4
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The most common ways of initiating proceedings, as described above, are the following:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • the victim lodges a complaint with the police or – by “quasi-avoiding” the police – with the so-called “magistrates’ court” (hereinafter “the court”);
  • the police formally accuse the suspect in custody and send a copy of the accusation (in the form of a record) to the court;
  • the prosecutor sends a briefing note to the court, in which he or she proposes to issue a warrant for the detention of the accused;
  • the prosecutor files a complaint with the court requesting that a summons be issued against the defendant;
  • the prosecutor immediately issues the so-called “voluntary indictment” and asks the High Court to accept it (if the latter agrees, the jury trial in the so-called “crown courts” is started).
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The institution of identification is also known in the Anglo-Saxon legal system, but it has multiple meanings: (1) confrontation or (2) eyewitness identification. Based on Anderson:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • these procedural steps are usually carried out by the police before the trial;
  • however, practical experience shows that identification is often “forced” by the authorities, which can lead to misidentification and ultimately wrong convictions; 5
  • to avoid this, the procedure may only be continued or repeated during the trial;
  • overall, investigative identification is often more effective, but the findings at trial are less open to challenge.
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Brennan summarizes the essence of the presentation to the jury, “A powerful influence on the jury, all indications are that almost nothing is more convincing to a jury than a living human being on a stand pointing a finger at the accused and saying, ‘It’s him!’ 6
1 This is initiated by the police acting under their official powers or on the basis of a warrant issued by a so-called “justice of the peace”.
2 Cf. The exercise of the right of inquiry is henceforth concentrated in the judicial branch.
3 It should be noted that if the private prosecution is competent, it is very likely that the so-called “director of public prosecutions” (DPP) will take over its representation in the further stages of the proceedings.
4 Csongor Herke: A német és az angol büntetőeljárás alapintézményei. [The basic institutions of German and English criminal procedure.] Pécs, University Note, 2011. 66.
5 Patrick R. Anderson – Donald J. Newman: Introduction to Criminal Justice. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1993. 146.
6 Watkins v. Souders, 449 U.S. 341, 352 (1982) (Brennan, J. dissenting)
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