The Problems of Witness Examination: Regulation in Criminal Procedure Code and Application in Practice
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
The regulation of the witness examination in Criminal procedure code of the Republic of Lithuania does not introduce solutions to all the practical issues. Thus, the article deals with the problems of the legal regulation of the witness examination and the application of the witness examination regulating legal norms in practice.
The purpose of this article is to evaluate the legal norms that regulate the witness examination on comparative aspect, to compare academic theses and opinions of different authors on this subject. Moreover, the main goal of the article is to formulate theoretical and practical problems of the witness examination as well as to propose solutions of these problems also to recommend improvements of legal norms.
The article covers the issues of implementation of the privilege not to accuse oneself, analysis of witness‘ immunity and the problems of divulgence of testimony given during preliminary investigation. The article aims to discuss the aforementioned issues from the practical point of view.
The Criminal procedure code provides for imperative prohibition to examine a person as a witness if he can give testimony to a criminal offence committed by himself. Thus, the practice of examination of a person as a witness when the data to claim him a suspect of committing a criminal offence is sufficient, is to be recognized as violation of the privilege not to accuse oneself. However, the status of a suspect ought not to be hasty so that neither mere suspicion would be a formal ground to apply legal restraints, nor unreasonable procrastination would limit possibilities to exercise rights of a suspect.
The amendments of Criminal procedure code are suggested as follows: to provide for possibility to examine a person as a witness if the preliminary investigation data suggests that he has possibly committed a criminal offence, but the data is not sufficient to claim him a suspect. Such a witness that is examined because of having committed criminal offence is to be ensured of a right of defence and a privilege not to give testimony against himself. His family members and close relatives ought to be granted immunity from obligation to testify as well.
The author suggests that the circle of persons granted immunity not to testify would be extended and the criminal procedure code would be amended providing for witness‘ immunity for the members of the Parliament. In addition, a person should be granted immunity from testifying to information comprising state‘s secret without permission of authorised institution to divulge that secret information.
The article covers the problems of reading aloud witness’ testimony given in the course of pre-trial investigation at the court hearing. The suggestions are made to enable the court to read aloud the testimony when a witness has died or is missing, resides abroad or at an unknown place or has contracted a disease disabling him to appear before a court, even if the testimony is given to a pre-trial investigator or a prosecutor.
The purpose of this article is to evaluate the legal norms that regulate the witness examination on comparative aspect, to compare academic theses and opinions of different authors on this subject. Moreover, the main goal of the article is to formulate theoretical and practical problems of the witness examination as well as to propose solutions of these problems also to recommend improvements of legal norms.
The article covers the issues of implementation of the privilege not to accuse oneself, analysis of witness‘ immunity and the problems of divulgence of testimony given during preliminary investigation. The article aims to discuss the aforementioned issues from the practical point of view.
The Criminal procedure code provides for imperative prohibition to examine a person as a witness if he can give testimony to a criminal offence committed by himself. Thus, the practice of examination of a person as a witness when the data to claim him a suspect of committing a criminal offence is sufficient, is to be recognized as violation of the privilege not to accuse oneself. However, the status of a suspect ought not to be hasty so that neither mere suspicion would be a formal ground to apply legal restraints, nor unreasonable procrastination would limit possibilities to exercise rights of a suspect.
The amendments of Criminal procedure code are suggested as follows: to provide for possibility to examine a person as a witness if the preliminary investigation data suggests that he has possibly committed a criminal offence, but the data is not sufficient to claim him a suspect. Such a witness that is examined because of having committed criminal offence is to be ensured of a right of defence and a privilege not to give testimony against himself. His family members and close relatives ought to be granted immunity from obligation to testify as well.
The author suggests that the circle of persons granted immunity not to testify would be extended and the criminal procedure code would be amended providing for witness‘ immunity for the members of the Parliament. In addition, a person should be granted immunity from testifying to information comprising state‘s secret without permission of authorised institution to divulge that secret information.
The article covers the problems of reading aloud witness’ testimony given in the course of pre-trial investigation at the court hearing. The suggestions are made to enable the court to read aloud the testimony when a witness has died or is missing, resides abroad or at an unknown place or has contracted a disease disabling him to appear before a court, even if the testimony is given to a pre-trial investigator or a prosecutor.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
