2017•Studia Iuridica LublinensiaOpen access

Procedural Use of Wiretapping in the Amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Certain Other Acts of 11 March 2016 in the Light of Right to Defense

Joanna Machlańska

Open full text 1 citations

Abstract

This article describes the changes occurred within the chapter 26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure and some other acts, which took place on 15 th April 2016, in particular, it contains a critical analysis of a radical change in the content of Article 237a of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the consequences of the expulsion of the Article 237 § 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this context, it should be noted that the legislator, in violation of existing regulation in a democratic state ruled by law, allowed the use of procedural wiretap in relation to all offences prosecuted ex officio and all fiscal offences, thus depriving participants of criminal proceedings (and therefore not only individuals, who have right defense) the possibility to appeal “the decision to use such evidence” undertaken by the prosecutor. At the same time, there is no time limit within which such evidence could be used by the prosecutor. The aim of this study is to simultaneously present the legislative omissions, errors committed by the legislator by implementing the above mentioned amendment.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This article describes the changes occurred within the chapter 26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure and some other acts, which took place on 15 th April 2016, in particular, it contains a critical analysis of a radical change in the content of Article 237a of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the consequences of the expulsion of the Article 237 § 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this context, it should be noted that the legislator, in violation of existing regulation in a democratic state ruled by law, allowed the use of procedural wiretap in relation to all offences prosecuted ex officio and all fiscal offences, thus depriving participants of criminal proceedings (and therefore not only individuals, who have right defense) the possibility to appeal “the decision to use such evidence” undertaken by the prosecutor. At the same time, there is no time limit within which such evidence could be used by the prosecutor. The aim of this study is to simultaneously present the legislative omissions, errors committed by the legislator by implementing the above mentioned amendment.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This article describes the changes occurred within the chapter 26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure and some other acts, which took place on 15 th April 2016, in particular, it contains a critical analysis of a radical change in the content of Article 237a of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the consequences of the expulsion of the Article 237 § 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this context, it should be noted that the legislator, in violation of existing regulation in a democratic state ruled by law, allowed the use of procedural wiretap in relation to all offences prosecuted ex officio and all fiscal offences, thus depriving participants of criminal proceedings (and therefore not only individuals, who have right defense) the possibility to appeal “the decision to use such evidence” undertaken by the prosecutor. At the same time, there is no time limit within which such evidence could be used by the prosecutor. The aim of this study is to simultaneously present the legislative omissions, errors committed by the legislator by implementing the above mentioned amendment.

Key concepts: Legislator, Criminal procedure, Criminal code, Appeal, Law, Legislature, Political science, Context (archaeology)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Procedural Use of Wiretapping in the Amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Certain Other Acts of 11 March 2016 in the Light of Right to Defense — Research Paper | ScholarLens