Podjęcie na nowo i wznowienie umorzonego postępowania karnego w polskim procesie karnym

Abstract

Out of all pre-trial proceedings, a considerable percentage ends with discontinuance. Discontinued pre-trial proceedings, as compared to the total number of completed pre-trial proceedings, in the last 6 years account for from 52% to 36%. Although the number of cases in which a decision on discontinuance is issued has been constantly decreasing, it is still more than one third of all proceedings that is discontinued. However, it is not always a decision on discontinuance that finally ends criminal proceedings. That is because the legislature, taking into account the possibility of an erroneous decision, has provided for relevant legal measures that allow setting aside decisions already issued and further conducting pre-trial proceedings that have been unjustly discontinued. Resumption of discontinued proceedings is one of such concepts. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not, however, provide for any special conditions for resumption of proceedings already discontinued, in particular it is not necessary for new facts or evidence to appear. Proceedings may be resumed both when a different evaluation of the evidence is adopted and when a superior public prosecutor takes a different view on the justifiability of the decision on discontinuance than the view of the public prosecutor who has discontinued or approved the proceedings. Proceedings may be resumed also simply for the purpose of checking yet another version of the incident. Resumption may occur also when new circumstances are disclosed, in the light of which the justifiability of the previous decision on discontinuance of pre-trial proceedings becomes dubious. To conclude, it should be mentioned that a actual ground which justifies conducting criminal proceedings as a result of their resumption is data which allow reasonable suspicion that the resumed proceedings will lead to finding premises for an offence or detection of the offender. In dissertation, I handle also the concept of restarting of discontinued pre-trial proceedings. This concept refers to pre-trial proceedings where there has been a suspect. In order to restart such proceedings, the decision to discontinue against the suspect has to be final and non-appealable. As regards restarting pre-trial proceedings, the legislature allows the possibility to use this method only when new material facts or evidence not known in the previous proceedings appear. It is e.g. a new opinion of an expert witness, an unknown method of criminology tests or disclosure of a new witness. Therefore, one may not so freely go back to discontinued proceedings as it is the case with resumption. This stringency is connected with that when restarting proceedings one infringes on the guarantees of the suspect with regard to whom proceedings have been previously finally ended. In other words, since the issue of criminal liability of a person is being re-considered, the decision to restart proceedings must be based on solid grounds in the form of new material facts or evidence. In dissertation, I also deal with restarting proceedings with regard to a crown witnesses Here, premises for restarting are completely different from the ones specified earlier. Among other things, restarting proceedings discontinued with regard to a crown witness may occur when the crown witness has committed a new offence acting in an organised group or when the crown witness has intentionally not performed the obligations imposed on him.