Sodna ali tožilska preiskava?

magistrsko delo

Mojca Lešnik (Author), Zlatko Dežman (Mentor)

Abstract

Vprašanje izbire med sodno preiskavo in preiskavo pod vodstvom državnih tožilcev je že leta predmet različnih razprav. Model kazenskega postopka, ki bi bil (bolj) adversaren in ki ne bi poznal instituta preiskovalnega sodnika, načela materialne resnice in instrukcijske maksime naj bi namreč bil učinkovitejši, pri čemer pa še zmeraj ni jasno, kaj naj bi učinkovitost v tem smislu sploh pomenila in v kakšnem smislu zdajšnji model postopka naj ne bi bil učinkovit. Kar se zdi v zvezi z vprašanjem pri izbiri sodne ali tožilske preiskave pomembno, je predvsem to, da bi bilo najprej treba razjasniti sam pojem "učinkovitost" v zvezi s kazenskim postopkom in določiti, v kakšnem smislu bi moral biti kazenski postopek učinkovit. Šele na podlagi tega je mogoče sploh ugotavljati, ali ima postopek kakšne pomanjkljivosti in presoditi, ali je postopek učinkovit ali ne. Če bi se izkazalo, da postopek ni učinkovit, pa bi bilo treba ugotoviti, kakšen bi moral biti, da bi veljal za učinkovitega - ali bi torej moral biti postopek popolnoma adversaren in bi tako bilo treba zamenjati zdajšnji mešani model postopka za adversarnega ali pa so potrebne le določene spremembe oziroma prilagoditve. Za zdaj se tako zdi primerneje lotiti se težav sistematično, po korakih oziroma bolje rečeno, po posameznih ožjih sklopih oziroma fazah, kot pa popolnoma zamenjati model postopka in v postopek uvesti tožilsko preiskavo. Tožilska preiskava bi namreč pomenila, da bi od posameznega državnega tožilca zahtevali, da hkrati deluje v kar treh različnih vlogah - da se vede kot državni organ; da je aktivna stranka v postopku in da deluje kot preiskovalec skupaj s policijo. Težave v zvezi z uvedbo tožilske preiskave na način, kot je ta bila zamišljena v nekaterih osnutkih in predlogih sprememb kazensko-procesne zakonodaje - bodisi tako, da bi obstajala zgolj tožilska preiskava ali pa na način, da bi sodna preiskava sicer še vedno obstajala, ampak le kot subsidiarna in fakultativna faza predhodnega postopka - pa so se pokazale tudi v nejasno določenem začetku kazenskega postopka in posledično v nedoločenosti njegovega proceduralnega predmeta, v neenakih možnostih izvedbe preiskave obrambe, predvsem pa je iz pripravljalnih gradiv izhajal močno otežen oziroma celo močno podrejen položaj obdolženega v postopku v primerjavi z državnim tožilcem.

Keywords

adversarnost;načelo materialne resnice;učinkovitost;predkazenski postopek;preiskava;preiskovalni sodnik;dokazni standardi;novela ZKP-N;obvezna obramba;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2019
Typology:	2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:	UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher:	M. Lešnik]
UDC:	343.1/.123.1(043.3)
COBISS:	5756459
Views:	1193
Downloads:	251
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	Judicial investigation or investigation by public prosecutors?
Secondary abstract:	The question of choice between judicial investigation or investigation lead by public prosecutor has been the subject of various discussions for years. A model of criminal procedure that is (more) adversarial and would not have known the institute of the investigating judge, the principle of material truth and the instructional maxim supposed to be more effective, although it is still unclear what does the effectiveness in this regard even mean and in what sense the current model of the procedure should not be effective. When questioning about judicial versus prosecution inquiry, it is essential to clarify the concept of effectiveness in relation to criminal procedure and determine in what sense the criminal procedure should be effective. Only based on that it is possible to determine whether the procedure has any imperfections and to determine whether the procedure is effective or not. If it turns out that the process isn't effective, then it should be ascertained what should procedure be like to be considered effective - whether it should be fully adversarial and should, therefore, the current mixed model of procedure be replaced by the adversarial model or only certain changes or adjustments are needed. For now, it seems more adequate to address the problems systematically, step by step or more precisely by individual narrower sections or phases, rather than completely replacing the model of the procedure and introducing prosecution investigation into the procedure. The prosecutors investigation would namely mean that it would require a public state prosecutor to act in three different roles simultaneously - to act as state authority; as an active party in the procedure and to act as an investigator alongside police. Problems related to the introduction of prosecutors investigation in the manner it was conceived in some drafts and amendments to criminal law legislation - either in a way that there would be only a prosecutors investigation or in a way that the judicial investigation would still exist, but only as a subsidiary and facultative phase of the pre-trial procedure - they also appeared in the vaguely determined initiation of criminal proceedings and, consequently, in the uncertainty of its procedural object, in unequal opportunities for conducting an investigation of defending party, and especially in the preparation materials, it was possible to detect a very difficult or even subordinate position of the accused in the procedure compared to the state prosecutor.
Secondary keywords:	adversariness;principle of material truth;effectiveness;pre-criminal procedure;investigation;investigating judge;standards of proof;Amending Act ZKP-N;mandatory defence;
URN:	URN:SI:UM:DK:W7SX5RAC
Type (COBISS):	Master's thesis/paper
Thesis comment:	Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages:	VII, 74 str.
ID:	11164953