Dopuszczalność dowodu w świetle art. 168a Kodeksu postępowania karnego
Loading...
Date
2019
Authors
Advisor
Editor
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM
Title alternative
Admissibility of the evidence under article 168a of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Abstract
Wprowadzenie art. 168a k.p.k. do polskiej procedury karnej budziło spore obawy ze strony doktryny. Przepis miał ograniczyć nielegalne pozyskiwanie dowodów. W praktyce to założenie okazało się złudne, bowiem ustawodawca nie sprecyzował reguł dopuszczalności owoców zatrutego drzewa. Nowela marcowa z 2016 r. nie tylko nie uchyliła tego przepisu, ale całkowicie zmieniła jego istotę. W zamyśle ustawodawcy artykuł miał dać praktycznie nieograniczone przyzwolenie funkcjonariuszom publicznym na naruszanie przepisów ustawy w celu pozyskania materiału dowodowego, w myśl reguły „cel uświęca środki”. Redakcja przepisu pozwala jednak na postawienie tezy, iż art. 168a k.p.k. wprawdzie wprowadza ogólną zasadę dopuszczalności dowodów nielegalnych, natomiast ten sam przepis w drugiej części statuuje istotne, z punktu widzenia ochrony praw i wolności jednostki, wyłączenia od tej zasady. Zakaz dowodowy wypływający z omawianej normy tymczasem pełni funkcję gwarancyjną. Należy podkreślić przede wszystkim, iż wbrew regułom wykładni byłoby interpretowanie omawianego przepisu jako „legalizację nielegalnych” działań funkcjonariuszy, ponieważ stanowiłoby to naruszenie standardów konstytucyjnych i konwencyjnych.
The introduction of article 168a into the Polish criminal procedure was a source of anxiety among the representatives of the doctrine. The provision was supposed to limit illegal obtaining of evidence. In fact, this assumption turned out to be fallacious, because the legislator had not specified the rules of admissibility of the fruits of the poisonous tree. Not only did March Amendment from 2016 abrogate the provision but it also completely changed its meaning. The intent of the legislator was to give public officials almost boundless allowance to breach the rules with the aim of collecting evidence in accordance with the rule “the end justifies the means”. Fortunately, botched wording of the provision allows to think that article 168a of the Code of Criminal Procedure admittedly introduces the general rule of admissibility of illegal evidence. However, the very same provision in its second part establishes very important exclusions from this rule from the point of view of rights and liberties protection of individuals. Meanwhile, the inadmissibility of evidence, stated in this normative content, performs a guarantee function. It should be taken into account that the interpretation of the presented provision as “legalising illegal” actions of public officials would be an interpretation against the rules of statutory interpretations, since it would constitute a breach of constitutional standards and convents.
The introduction of article 168a into the Polish criminal procedure was a source of anxiety among the representatives of the doctrine. The provision was supposed to limit illegal obtaining of evidence. In fact, this assumption turned out to be fallacious, because the legislator had not specified the rules of admissibility of the fruits of the poisonous tree. Not only did March Amendment from 2016 abrogate the provision but it also completely changed its meaning. The intent of the legislator was to give public officials almost boundless allowance to breach the rules with the aim of collecting evidence in accordance with the rule “the end justifies the means”. Fortunately, botched wording of the provision allows to think that article 168a of the Code of Criminal Procedure admittedly introduces the general rule of admissibility of illegal evidence. However, the very same provision in its second part establishes very important exclusions from this rule from the point of view of rights and liberties protection of individuals. Meanwhile, the inadmissibility of evidence, stated in this normative content, performs a guarantee function. It should be taken into account that the interpretation of the presented provision as “legalising illegal” actions of public officials would be an interpretation against the rules of statutory interpretations, since it would constitute a breach of constitutional standards and convents.
Description
Sponsor
Keywords
nielegalne pozyskiwanie dowodów, illegal obtaining of evidence, owoce zatrutego drzewa, fruits of the poisonous tree, zasada dopuszczalności dowodów nielegalnych, rule of admissibility of illegal evidence, zakaz dowodowy, inadmissibility of evidence
Citation
Zeszyt Studencki Kół Naukowych Wydziału Prawa i Administracji UAM, 2019, nr 9, s. 83-96
Seria
ISBN
ISSN
2299-2774