Hide
Show all
Email this article The Meaning of the Likelihood of Severe Penalty Being Imposed upon the Accused in Making a Decision on Pre-trial Detention
Abstract
This article is of a scientific nature, that employs a dogmatic method. The aim of the study is to establish the status and function of the severity of penalty under Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter: the CCP) in making decisions on the application of pre-trial detention. This issue is controversial both in doctrine and jurisprudence. The text presents a new approach that Article 258 § 2 of the CCP does not set out a specific premise for the imposition of pre-trial detention. This provision cannot express an independent criterion for imposing the most severe preventive measure as Article 258 § 2 of the CCP is of auxiliary character. It expresses an auxiliary criterion for determining whether the special premises for imposing pre-trial detention under Article 258 § 2 of the CCP have been realized. The proposals contained in the article are intended to facilitate the interpretation of national provisions on coercive measures and to facilitate their application in the practice of the judiciary. The article indicates the factors that are important in assessing whether the likelihood of imposing severe punishment crystalizes the risk of fleeing, hiding or obstructing justice. For the application of pre-trial detention there may be arguments, i.a., pertaining to the nature of the offense alleged. In this context, it should be important whether the potential perpetrator is charged with a crime with a use of violence or threat thereof. His posture in the course of criminal proceedings so far is also not without significance. It may be, however, that the likelihood of imposing severe penalty may give rise to the fear of obstruction of justice even in a situation where the accused, who knew about the pending criminal case, did not take any unlawful action. Nevertheless, the correct posture of the accused in the course of criminal proceedings will often be a significant factor against the use of pre-trial detention.
Keywords
References
LITERATURE
Bator A., Bezpośrednie stosowanie Konstytucji Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej, “Państwo i Prawo” 2006, no. 10.
Bielski M., Stosowanie środków zapobiegawczych w świetle konstytucyjnej zasady proporcjonalności, [in:] Prawo karne wobec Konstytucji, eds. M. Pająk, R. Zawłocki, Warszawa 2018.
Cychosz P., Konstytucyjny standard prawa karnego materialnego w orzecznictwie Trybunału Konstytucyjnego, Kraków 2017.
Drajewicz D., Glosa do uchwały SN z dnia 19 stycznia 2019 r., I KZP 18/11, “Prokuratura i Prawo” 2013, no. 10.
Drewicz M., Glosa do uchwały Sądu Najwyższego z 19 stycznia 2012 r., sygn. I KZP 18/11, “Czasopismo Prawa Karnego i Nauk Penalnych” 2012, no. 3.
Gajewska-Kraczkowska H., Rozważania nad polską praktyką aresztową – od sprawy Adama Kauczora do ustawy nowelizacyjnej z dnia 27 września 2013 r., “Wojskowy Przegląd Prawniczy” 2015, no. 1.
Grzęda E., Przesłanka tymczasowego aresztowania z art. 258 § 2 k.p.k., “Czasopismo Prawa Karnego i Nauk Penalnych 2015, no. 3.
Hermeliński W., Nita-Światłowska B., Tymczasowe aresztowanie ze względu na grożącą oskarżonemu surową karę, “Palestra” 2018, no. 6.
Kiełtyka A., Antycypacja bezprawnego utrudniania postępowania karnego jako przesłanka tymczasowego aresztowania, “Prokurator” 2003, no. 2.
Kornak M., Glosa do uchwały SN z dnia 19 stycznia 2012 r., I KZP 18/11, LEX/el. 2012.
Machlańska J., Glosa do uchwały SN z dnia 19 stycznia 2019 r., I KZP 18/11, “Czasopismo Prawa Karnego i Nauk Penalnych” 2013, no. 2.
Skorupka J., Glosa do uchwały SN z dnia 19 stycznia 2012 r., I KZP 18/11, “Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich” 2012, no. 7–8.
Skorupka J., Komentarz do art. 258, [in:] Kodeks postępowania karnego. Komentarz, ed. J. Skorupka, Warszawa 2020.
Skorupka J, Konstytucyjny i konwencyjny standard tymczasowego aresztowania, “Państwo i Prawo” 2007, no. 7.
Skorupka J., O niekonstytucyjności art. 258 § 2 k.p.k., “Państwo i Prawo” 2018, no. 3.
Skorupka J., Tymczasowe aresztowanie w praktyce stosowania prawa, “Palestra” 2021, no. 1.
Stefański R.A., Komentarz do art. 258, [in:] Kodeks postępowania karnego. Komentarz, Warszawa 2019.
Stefański R.A., Przegląd uchwał Izb Karnej, Wojskowej Sądu Najwyższego w zakresie postępowania karnego za 2012 r., “Ius Novum” 2013, no. 2.
Szydło M., [in:] Konstytucja RP, vol. 1: Komentarz. Art. 1–86, eds. M. Safjan, L. Bosek, Warszawa 2016.
Świecki D., Komentarz do art. 258, [in:] Kodeks postępowania karnego, vol. 1: Komentarz aktualizowany, ed. D. Świecki, Warszawa 2020.
Warchoł M., Domniemania przy tymczasowym aresztowaniu, [in:] Funkcje procesu karnego. Księga jubileuszowa Profesora Janusza Tylmana, ed. T. Grzegorczyk, Warszawa 2011.
Woźniak A., Glosa do uchwały Sądu Najwyższego z 19 stycznia 2012 r., sygn. I KZP 18/11, “Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich” 2013, no. 6.
Zając D., Zagrożenie karą jako przesłanka stosowania tymczasowego aresztowania, “Czasopismo Prawa Karnego i Nauk Penalnych” 2018, no. 4.
Żbikowska M., Prawdopodobieństwo w procesie karnym, “Państwo i Prawo” 2018, no. 3.
LEGAL ACTS
Act of 27 September 2013 amending the Act – Code of Criminal Procedure and certain other acts (Journal of Laws 2013, item 1247).
Act of 11 March 2016 amending the Act – Code of Criminal Procedure and certain other acts (Journal of Laws 2016, item 437).
CASE LAW
Decision of the Constitutional Tribunal of 17 July 2019, S 3/19, LEX no. 2712693.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Wrocław of 19 October 2005, II AKz 453/05, OSA 2006, no. 3, item 15.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Katowice of 28 December 2005, II AKz 777/05, KZS 2006, no. 4, item 84.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Lublin of 6 May 2009, II AKz 261/09, KZS 2009, no. 9, item 84.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Kraków of 18 February 2010, II AKz 50/10, LEX no. 584383.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Wrocław of 5 January 2012, II AKz 4/12, LEX no. 1108804.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Kraków of 27 March 2013, II AKz 97/13, LEX no. 1321956.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Katowice of 7 May 2014, II AKz 275/14, LEX no. 15373691.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Katowice of 30 July 2014, II AKz 466/14, LEX no. 1616052.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Katowice of 28 October 2015, II AKz 604/15, LEX no. 1959455.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Kraków of 29 December 2015, II AKz 479/15, LEX no. 2062875.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Katowice of 20 January 2016, II AKz 19/16, LEX no. 2023124.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Kraków of 19 May 2016, II AKz 168/16, LEX no. 2155401.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Katowice of 9 November 2016, II AKz 576/16, LEX no. 2242178.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Kraków of 15 September 2017, II AKz 353/17, LEX no. 2521584.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Kraków of 11 October 2017, II AKz 389/17, LEX no. 2536076.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Kraków of 26 January 2018, II AKz 26/18, LEX no. 2609993.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Katowice of 14 February 2018, II AKz 90/18, LEX no. 2518023.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Katowice of 16 February 2018, II AKa 14/18, LEX no. 2490238.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Kraków of 6 March 2018, II AKz 104/18, LEX no. 2574269.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Kraków of 6 March 2018, II AKz 107/18, LEX no. 2574274.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Katowice of 17 July 2018, II AKa 488/18, LEX no. 2615545.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Kraków of 27 August 2018, II AKz 432/18, LEX no. 2633158.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Katowice of 20 November 2018, II AKa 925/18, LEX no. 2691442.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk of 11 December 2018, II AKz 654/18, LEX no. 2692006.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Kraków of 1 February 2019, II AKz 31/19, LEX no. 2718715.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Kraków of 13 February 2019, II AKz 69/19, LEX no. 2707058.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Kraków of 27 May 2019, II AKz 279/19, LEX no. 2757816.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Kraków of 3 July 2019, II AKz 303/19, LEX no. 2757824.
Decision of the Court of Appeal in Kraków of 11 July 2019, II AKz 366/19, LEX no. 2757825.
Decision of the ECtHR of 6 February 2018, 25875/11, Lipnicki v. Poland, LEX no. 2447257.
Decision of the ECtHR of 20 February 2018, 19445/10, Lejk v. Polska, LEX no. 2456377.
Decision of the Supreme Court of 11 October 1980, II KZ 180/08, OSNKW 1981, no. 3, item 17.
Decision of the Supreme Court of 26 November 2003, WZ 59/03, OSNwSK 2003, no. 1, item 2541.
Decision of the Supreme Court of 12 March 2009, WZ 15/09, LEX no. 503668.
Decision of the Supreme Court of 26 November 2014, II KK 83/14, LEX no. 1646952.
Decision of the Supreme Court of 28 November 2017, WZ 21/17, LEX no. 2401843.
Decision of the Supreme Court of 26 February 2019, II KK 178/18, LEX no. 2625401.
Decision of the Supreme Court of 20 February 2020, KZ 6/20, LEX no. 2785121.
Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 25 February 1999, SK 23/98, LEX no. 36178.
Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 7 October 2008, P 30/07, LEX no. 671629.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Katowice of 3 December 2015, II AKa 449/15, LEX no. 2023117.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 10 March 2010, 34322/10, Rambiert v. Polska, LEX no. 1652022.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 5 July 2018, 43924/12, Zieliński v. Polska, LEX no. 2511462.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 19 July 2018, 52683/15, Zagalski v. Poland, LEX no. 2592220.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 18 October 2018, 15333/16, Burża v. Polska, LEX no. 2594447.
Resolution of the Supreme Court in the panel of 7 judges of 19 January 2012, I KZP 18/11, LEX no. 1102081.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2022.31.3.233-254
Date of publication: 2022-09-28 19:31:28
Date of submission: 2021-05-25 14:47:41
Statistics
Indicators
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2022 Szymon Tarapata
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.