<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>The aim of the article is to show the problems related to the application of interviewing an adult victim in cases of offenses against his sexual freedom, which evidentiary activity is regulated in Art. 185 of the CCP. This provision has to reconcile two opposing reasons – protection of the aggrieved party and avoidance double victimization and providing the accused with a guarantee of his interests, especially the rights of a defense lawyer to participate in questioning. A great contribution to making considerations on the meaning of the commented regulation is the judgment of the Supreme Court of June 29, 2022, in the case III KK 202/21, which was issued after the recognition of the cassation appeal of the defender of the accused. In the case, the Supreme Court, weighing the cassation charges, decided that refusal by the appellate court of the request for rehearing the aggrieved party, in a situation where their hearing in the course of the proceedings preparatory proceedings took place not only in the absence of the accused, but also under the absence of his counsel constitutes a significant violation of the accused’s right to defense. This is because the accused has no way of getting filed in this mode, the statements should be verified from the point of view of their credibility. The ruling of the Supreme Court should be considered as accurate, especially as it was reached in extending the right to use the assistance of a defense lawyer also in relation to the person as to which has not yet been ordered to present the charges but do exist while for it there are reasonable grounds that, as a result of the hearing, it will become a suspect.</p>
</abstract>

The aim of the article is to show the problems related to the application of interviewing an adult victim in cases of offenses against his sexual freedom, which evidentiary activity is regulated in Art. 185 of the CCP. This provision has to reconcile two opposing reasons – protection of the aggrieved party and avoidance double victimization and providing the accused with a guarantee of his interests, especially the rights of a defense lawyer to participate in questioning. A great contribution to making considerations on the meaning of the commented regulation is the judgment of the Supreme Court of June 29, 2022, in the case III KK 202/21, which was issued after the recognition of the cassation appeal of the defender of the accused. In the case, the Supreme Court, weighing the cassation charges, decided that refusal by the appellate court of the request for rehearing the aggrieved party, in a situation where their hearing in the course of the proceedings preparatory proceedings took place not only in the absence of the accused, but also under the absence of his counsel constitutes a significant violation of the accused’s right to defense. This is because the accused has no way of getting filed in this mode, the statements should be verified from the point of view of their credibility. The ruling of the Supreme Court should be considered as accurate, especially as it was reached in extending the right to use the assistance of a defense lawyer also in relation to the person as to which has not yet been ordered to present the charges but do exist while for it there are reasonable grounds that, as a result of the hearing, it will become a suspect.

Hearing a Witness Pursuant to Art. 185 of the CCP and an Assurance of Defendant’s Rights of Defense. Comments on the Verdict of the Supreme Court of June 29, 2022, III KK 202/21

wykładowca współpracujący z Wydziałem Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego

Ius Novum

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The aim of the article is to show the problems related to the application of interviewing an adult victim in cases of offenses against his sexual freedom,...

Hearing a Witness Pursuant to Art. 185 of the CCP and an Assurance of Defendant’s Rights of Defense. Comments on the Verdict of the Supreme Court of June 29, 2022, III KK 202/21

Online veröffentlicht: 01. März 2023

Seitenbereich: 73 - 89

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26399/iusnovum.v16.4.2022.38-m.skwarcow

Schlüsselwörter
victim, double victimization, hearing of the aggrieved party, the accused and his defense counsel, new circumstances for re-examination questioning the aggrieved party

© 2022 Lazarski University, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Hearing a Witness Pursuant to Art. 185 of the CCP and an Assurance of Defendant’s Rights of Defense. Comments on the Verdict of the Supreme Court of June 29, 2022, III KK 202/21

Online veröffentlicht: 01. März 2023

Seitenbereich: 73 - 89

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26399/iusnovum.v16.4.2022.38-m.skwarcow

Schlüsselwörtervictim, double victimization, hearing of the aggrieved party, the accused and his defense counsel, new circumstances for re-examination questioning the aggrieved party

© 2022 Lazarski University, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Schlüsselwörter
victim, double victimization, hearing of the aggrieved party, the accused and his defense counsel, new circumstances for re-examination questioning the aggrieved party