{"title":"根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第185条听取证人陈述和被告辩护权的保证。对最高法院2022年6月29日裁决的评论,KK 202/21","authors":"Marek Skwarcow","doi":"10.26399/iusnovum.v16.4.2022.38-m.skwarcow","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summary 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.","PeriodicalId":33501,"journal":{"name":"Ius Novum","volume":"16 1","pages":"73 - 89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"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\",\"authors\":\"Marek Skwarcow\",\"doi\":\"10.26399/iusnovum.v16.4.2022.38-m.skwarcow\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Summary 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33501,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ius Novum\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"73 - 89\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ius Novum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26399/iusnovum.v16.4.2022.38-m.skwarcow\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ius Novum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26399/iusnovum.v16.4.2022.38-m.skwarcow","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
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
Summary 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.