Formalna dokazna pravila (s poudarkom na dokazovanje s privilegiranimi pričami)

diplomsko delo

Branimir Šijanec (Author), Zlatko Dežman (Mentor)

Abstract

Dokazovanje kaznivih dejanj se začne s fazo odkrivanja kaznivih dejanj v predkazenskem postopku, ko policija z uporabo formalnih in neformalnih preiskovalnih dejanj zbira dokazno gradivo za kasnejše faze kazenskega postopka. Ta začetna faza kazenskega postopka je izjemno pomembna za sam nadaljnji potek kazenskega postopka, saj se lahko s kvalitetnim in kolikor je mogoče obširnim dokaznim gradivom v konkretni kazenski zadevi vpliva na končni izid kazenskega postopka. Fazi odkrivanja kaznivega dejanja in storilca sledi faza pregona kaznivega dejanja, kjer ima osrednjo vlogo procesni subjekt, ki je s strani države pooblaščen za pregon storilca kaznivega dejanja. Državni tožilec, ki je kot državni organ pooblaščen za pregon kaznivih dejanj, je od vseh udeležencev kazenskega postopka edini ves čas v stiku z dokaznim gradivom, katerega mora skrbno pretehtati in nato oceniti, ali bo prispevalo k cilju, h kateremu mora glede na funkcijo pregona kaznivih dejanj in storilca stremeti. Njegov cilj mora biti glede na njegovo funkcijo uspeh v kazenskem postopku, ki je dosežen z obsodilno sodbo. V slovenskem kazenskem pravu poznamo mešani tip kazenskega postopka, v katerega se je vneslo več elementov kontradiktornosti, značilnih za akuzatorni oz. adversarni model kazenskega postopka. V tem tipu kazenskega postopka državni tožilec in obramba kot stranki v kazenskem postopku, v fazi preiskave in kasneje na glavni obravnavi predlagata dokaze, za ugotavljanje dejstev na katere se sklicujeta. Glede na svojo funkcijo v kazenskem postopku, nosi dokazno breme državni tožilec, ki bo predlagal tiste dokaze, kateri bodo podlaga obsodilne sodbe. Povsem nasprotno vlogo od državnega tožilca ima obramba, ki mora argumentirano zavračati utemeljenost obtožbe v skladu z lastno obrambno strategijo, za kar mora imeti obramba tudi ustrezne institute. Te institute in pravna pravila mora zagotoviti zakonodajalec, saj se z njimi zagotavlja karseda enakovreden in pošten boj. Medtem ko se v fazah postopka pred glavno obravnavo zagotavljajo dokazna sredstva, se procesna dejanja dokazovanja opravljajo na glavni obravnavi, kot osrednji fazi kazenskega postopka, ki se konča z izrekom sodbe. Na glavni obravnavni je dominus litis postopka sodišče, ki izvaja dokaze na podlagi lastnih spoznavnih potreb ter nosi dokazno breme subsidiarno. Sodišče v postopku dokazovanja pretrese vsa dejstva, za katera misli, da so potrebna za pravilno presojo in ugotavljanje dejanskega stanja. Na podlagi dokazovanja s pomočjo dokaznih sredstev, iz katerih sodišče črpa dokazno gradivo, se sodišče prepriča o obstoju ali neobstoju pomembnih dejstev. Po končani glavni obravnavi sodišče namreč na podlagi psihološke dokazne ocene presodi o dokaznem gradivu in odloči s sodbo. Po načelu proste presoje dokazov je pri izbiri dokaznih sredstev ter pri dokazni oceni prosto formalnih dokaznih pravil. Pri tem je omejeno z dokaznimi prepovedmi, s katerimi se sodišču prepoveduje, da bi oprlo sodbo na nedovoljene dokaze, pridobljene s kršitvijo temeljnih človekovih pravic in svoboščin ali pridobljene s kršitvijo določb Zakona o kazenskem postopku, kadar ta določa, da se sodba nanje ne sme opreti. Seveda tudi ni dovoljeno opreti sodbe na dokaze pridobljene na podlagi nedovoljenih dokazov. Vsi takšni dokazi se izločijo in tako sodišče pri odločanju vendarle ni prosto pravnih omejitev, s čimer se pomembno omejuje načelo proste presoje dokazov in načelo iskanja resnice. Načelo iskanja resnice je omejeno tudi s pravicami nekaterih oseb, da lahko odklonijo pričevanje. To so osebe, ki so oproščene dolžnosti pričevanja zaradi varovanja družinskega življenja in preprečevanja moralne dileme ali govoriti resnico ter s tem ustvarjati konflikte med bližnjimi ali pa ne izpovedati po resnici. V primeru teh oseb in v primerih, ko med osebami obstoji pravno priznan odnos zaupanja, se mora načelo iskanja resnice umakniti procesni volji oseb, da ne bodo pričale, s čimer se omejuje spoznavni krog dokaznih sredstev za ugotavljanje dejanskega

Keywords

kazensko pravo;predkazenski postopek;kazenski postopek;dokazovanje;dokazno sredstvo;dokazne prepovedi;kaznivo dejanje;izločitev nedovoljenih dokazov;privilegirane priče;odpoved pričevanju;diplomska dela;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2014
Typology:	2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:	UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher:	[B. Šijanec]
UDC:	343.3/.7(043.2)
COBISS:	4667179
Views:	2543
Downloads:	424
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	FORMAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (WITH EMPHASIS ON PROVING WITH PRIVILIGED WITNESSES)
Secondary abstract:	The initial stage of proving criminal offences comprises detecting criminal offences within the pre-trial procedure, during which the police gathers evidence material for later criminal proceedings’ stages by using formal and informal preliminary investigation actions. The initial criminal proceedings’ stage is of significant importance for further criminal proceedings’ course, since quality and extensive criminal evidence in a specific criminal case may affect the final result in the criminal proceedings’ stage. The stage of detecting the criminal offence and the offender is followed by the prosecution of the criminal offence, in which the main role is played by the criminal procedure subject, authorised by a national state for the prosecution of the criminal offence offender. Public prosecutor, acting as a governmental authority authorised for the prosecution of criminal offences, is the only person amongst all participants in criminal proceedings that is constantly in contact with evidence material, which has to be diligently weighed and later estimated whether it will contribute to the goal to which it has to strive considering the prosecution function and the offender. Considering its function the goal has to represent success in penal proceeding act, which is achieved with the judgement of conviction. Slovene criminal law includes a mixed type of criminal proceedings, in which several contradiction elements typical for accusatorial or adversary criminal proceedings were introduced. During the prosecution process and later at trial in the mixed type of criminal procedure the public prosecutor and the defence propose evidence for ascertaining the facts to which they refer. Regarding the function in criminal proceedings the burden of proof is carried by the public prosecutor, who will propose the evidence, which will represent the basis for the judgement of conviction. The role of the public prosecutor is completely opposite to the role of the defence. The later must refute the justification of the charge in accordance with its own defence strategy, which urges the defence to have relevant institutes. These institutes and the legal rules have to be provided by the legislator as the use thereof ensures as equal and fair battle as possible. While evidence means are ensured in the procedure stages prior to the trial, the procedural acts of proving are performed in the trial as the main stage of criminal proceedings, which ends with the operative part of the judgement. The dominus litis of the procedure in the trial is the court, which takes evidence on the basis of own mental needs and carries the burden of proof subsidiary. During the procedure of taking evidence the court has to discuss all the facts, which it considers to be necessary for correct evaluation and determination of actual situation. Based on proving with the help of evidence means, which provide evidence material for the court, the court has to ascertain the existence or non-existence of essential facts. After the trial the court weighs evidence on the basis of psychological evidence estimation and pronounces a judgement. According to the principle of free weighing of evidence the court is free of formal rules of evidence when selecting evidence means and estimating evidence. In doing this it is limited by evidemtiary prohibitions, which prohibit the court to base its judgement on unadmitted evidence, gathered by violating fundamental human rights and liberties or gathered by violating provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, when it provides that the judgement shall not be based on them. Furthermore, it is not allowed to base a judgement on unadmitted evidence. All such evidence shall be excluded and thus the court is nonetheless not free of legal limitations in reaching its decision, which significantly limits the principle of free weighing of evidence and the principle of finding the truth. The substantive truth principle is also limited with some people’s rights to refuse to give testimony. These are the people who are e
Secondary keywords:	pre-trial procedure;criminal proceedings;proving;evidence means;evidence;evidentiary prohibitions;criminal offence;exclusion of unadmitted evidence;privileged witnesses;refuse to give testimony;
URN:	URN:SI:UM:
Type (COBISS):	Undergraduate thesis
Thesis comment:	Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages:	88 f.
ID:	8728344