Remote trial in criminal proceedings as a threat to the implementation of the principle of immediacy? Reflections on the background of the Polish legal order
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v10i2.985Keywords:
main trial; videoconference; principle of immediacy; fair criminal trial.Abstract
This article establishes whether a trial conducted with the use of technical devices with simultaneous direct transmission of video and audio can cause a limitation or even a threat to the realization of the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings, which is an element of a fair trial. The author identified how the principle of immediacy is implemented in selected orders of European countries, i.e. Poland, Austria, Germany and England. The author analyzed the provisions for conducting a remote trial in Polish criminal proceedings. The author paid particular attention to the technical issues that limit the realization of the principle of immediacy during a remote trial, and presented the results of a survey of members of legal profession in Poland who also perceive these threats (also in the context of the standards of a fair trial). These considerations led the author to conclude that cases of conducting the trial with the use of technical devices with simultaneous direct transmission of video and audio may constitute a limitation of the principle of immediacy and, consequently, pose a threat to fair trial standards.
Downloads
References
BENABOU, Valérie-Laure; JEULAND, Emmanuel. From the Principle of Immediacy to the Principle of Presence: A French Example and a Comparative Law Perspective. International Journal of Procedural Law, v. 12, n. 1, pp. 40-56, 2022.
BŁACHNIO-PARZYCH, Anna; KOSONOGA, Jacek. Rzetelny proces karny w orzecznictwie Sądu Najwyższego. In: WILIŃSKI, Paweł (ed.). Rzetelny proces karny w orzecznictwie sądów polskich i międzynarodowych. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Wolters Kluwer, 2009. pp. 233-201.
BRODIN, Mark S. The British Experience with Hersay Reform: A Cautionary Tale. Fordham Law Review, v. 84, Issue 4, pp. 1417-1427, 2016.
DEMENKO, Anna. Prawo do obrony formalnej w transgranicznym postępowaniu karnym w Unii Europejskiej, LEX 2013.
DENAULT, Vincent; DUNBAR, Norah. Nonverbal communication in courtrooms: Scientific assessments or modern trials by ordeal? The Advocates’ Quarterly, v. 47(3), pp. 280-308, 2017.
DENAULT, Vincent; PATTERSON, Miles L. Justice and Nonverbal Communication in a Post-pandemic World: An Evidence-Based Commentary and Cautionary Statement for Lawyers and Judges. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, v. 45(1), pp. 1-10, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-020-00339-x
DUMITRESCU, Adrian. Das Unmittelbarkeitsprinzip im deutschen und schweizerischen Strafprozessrecht. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strarechtswissenschaft, v. 130, n. 1, pp. 106-155, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1515/zstw-2018-0005
DUTKIEWICZ, Marcin. Przesłuchanie świadka na odległość w świetle artykułu 177 § 1a k.p.k. Palestra, n. 3-4, pp. 74-82, 2008.
GILHOFER, Daniel. Use of Administrative Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in Austria. Eucrim, n. 4, pp. 266-273, 2022. https://doi.org/10.30709/eucrim-2022-017
GRUBALSKA, Aleksandra. Rozprawa zdalna na gruncie art. 374 kodeksu postępowania karnego. Roczniki Administracji i Prawa, n. 3, pp. 99-109, 2021. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0015.7578
HALL, Judith A.; HORGAN, Terrence G.; MURPHY, Nora A. Nonverbal Communication. Annual Review of Psychology, n. 70, pp. 271-294, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103145
HJORT Maria A. Orality and Digital Hearings. International Journal of Procedural Law, v. 12, n. 1, pp. 29-39, 2022.
HOFMANN, Robin. Formalism versus pragmatism – A comparative legal and empirical analysis of the German and Dutch criminal justice systems with regard to effectiveness and efficiency. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, v. 28, n. 4, pp. 452-478, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263x211005983
INCHAUSTI, Fernando G. Challenges for Orality in Times of Remote Hearings: Efficiency, Immediacy and Public Proceedings. International Journal of Procedural Law, v. 12, n. 1, pp. 8-28, 2022.
JACKSON, John D.; WEIGEND, Thomas. Witness Evidence in Pre-Trial and Trial Procedure. In: AMBOS, Kai; DUFF, Antony; HEINZE, Alexander; ROBERTS, Julian; WEIGEND, Thomas (eds). Core concepts in Criminal law and Criminal justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. pp. 260-299. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009037136.008
KUCZYŃSKA, Hanna. Analiza porównawcza modelu rozprawy głównej. Między kontradyktoryjnością a inkwizycyjnością, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Wolters Kluwer Polska, 2022.
LACH, Arkadiusz. Przesłuchanie na odległość w postępowaniu karnym. Państwo i Prawo, n. 12, pp. 80-87, 2006.
LACH, Arkadiusz. Udział oskarżonego w czynnościach procesowych w drodze videokonferencji. Prokuratura i Prawo, n. 9, pp. 25-35, 2009.
LACH, Arkadiusz; KLUBIŃSKA, Maja; BADOWIEC, Renata. Conflicting interests of witnesses and defendants in a fair criminal trial – can a hearing by videoconference be the best instrument to reconcile them?. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, v. 8, n. 3, pp. 1157-1199, 2022. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v8i3.737
MIKLAU, Roland. Austria, principles of criminal procedure and their application in disciplinary proceedings. Revue internationale de droit pénal, v. 74, n. 3, pp. 793-799, 2003. https://doi.org/10.3917/ridp.743.0793
ORŁOWSKA-ZIELIŃSKA, Bogna; SZCZECHOWICZ, Krystyna. Wybrane aspekty odstępstwa od zasady bezpośredniości w procesie karnym i ich zgodność z Konstytucją. Studia Prawnoustrojowe, n. 23, pp. 149-156, 2014.
PALUSZKIEWICZ, Hanna. Zasada bezpośredniości. In: HOFMAŃSKI, Piotr; WILIŃSKI, Paweł (eds). System Prawa Karnego Procesowego. Tom III. Cz. 2. Zasady procesu karnego. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Wolters Kluwer, 2014. pp. 1005-1119.
SCHILBACH, Leonhard; WILMS, Marcus; EICKHOFF, Simon B.; ROMANZETTI, Sandro; TEPEST, Ralf; BENTE, Gary; SHAH, N Jon; FINK, Gereon R.; VOGELEY, Kai. Minds made for sharing: initiating joint attention recruits reward-related neurocircuitry. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Dec;22(12), pp. 2702-2715, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21401
ŚWIECKI, Dariusz. Postępowanie apelacyjne w niemieckim procesie karnym. Prokuratura i Prawo, n. 5, pp. 104-113, 2011.
ŚWIECKI, Dariusz. Art. 374. In: ŚWIECKI, Dariusz (ed.). Kodeks postępowania karnego. Tom I. Komentarz aktualizowany, LEX 2023.
VOGLER, Richard. The Principle of Immediacy in English Criminal Procedural Law. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strarechtswissenschaft, v. 126, n. 1, pp. 239-247, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1515/zstw-2014-0013
WIEDERHOLD, Brenda K. Connecting Through Technology During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Avoiding "Zoom Fatigue". Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Jul;23(7), pp. 437-438, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.29188.bkw
WILIŃSKI, Paweł. Zasada prawa do obrony w polskim procesie karnym, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Wolters Kluwer Polska, 2006.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Renata Badowiec
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As of 2022, articles published in the RDPP are licensed under Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional. rticles published until 2021 adopted the Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
How to Cite
