Funkciji odkrivanja in pregona kaznivih dejanj ter njun medsebojni odnos

diplomsko delo

Tamara Ilić (Avtor), Zlatko Dežman (Mentor)

Povzetek

Funkciji odkrivanja in pregona kaznivih dejanj sta v pristojnosti dveh različnih, samostojnih organov – policije kot organa odkrivanja in državnega tožilstva kot organa pregona kaznivih dejanj. Oba delujeta z istim ciljem uspešnega boja proti kriminaliteti, kar jima omogočajo zakonsko natančno določena pooblastila, na podlagi katerih opravljata vsak svoje aktivnosti. Stičišče obeh funkcij je t. i. predkazenski postopek, katerega subjekt je poleg policije in državnega tožilstva tudi preiskovalni sodnik. Predkazenski postopek kot prva faza predhodnega postopka se začne, če so podani razlogi za sum, da je bilo storjeno kaznivo dejanje, ki se preganja po uradni dolžnosti. Subjekti predkazenskega postopka pri tem opravljajo t. i. predprocesna dejanja. Policija, ki največkrat prva izve za storjeno kaznivo dejanje, opravlja v predkazenskem postopku operativno˗taktično dejavnost, z namenom, da bi odkrila kaznivo dejanje in njenega storilca ter zbrala dovolj informacij, ki so državnemu tožilcu potrebne za odločitev ali bo sprožil kazenski pregon ali da kaznivega dejanja ne bo preganjal. Poleg neformalnih dejanj opravlja policija tudi nekatera formalna dejanja, ki lahko imajo dokazno vrednost v kazenskem postopku. Dominus litis predkazenskega postopka je državni tožilec, saj mora biti obveščen o vseh kaznivih dejanjih, ki se preganjajo po uradni dolžnosti, policijsko preiskovanje pa sme usmerjati z navodili, mnenji in predlogi. Preiskovalni sodnik v predkazenskem postopku vse bolj nastopa kot sodnik garant in ne kot aktiven preiskovalni organ. Odloča o izvedbi preiskovalnih dejanj policije ali o uporabi ukrepov, s katerimi policija posega v človekove pravice in svoboščine. Končni izid predkazenskega postopka je tako odvisen od skupnega dela vseh njegovih subjektov. Medsebojni odnos med policijo in državnim tožilcem se vzpostavi v predkazenskem postopku, predvsem pri kaznivih dejanjih zoper gospodarstvo, pri organiziranem kriminalu in pri težjih kaznivih dejanjih splošne kriminalitete. Zakon o kazenskem postopku ga ureja kot usmerjanje predkazenskega postopka, vendar ima širši pomen. Je zbir vseh možnih interakcij med policijo in državnim tožilcem v predkazenskem postopku. Policisti in državni tožilci se pri njihovem skupnem delu soočajo z nekaterimi težavami, ki med drugim izhajajo iz raziskave Inštituta za kriminologijo pri Pravni fakulteti v Ljubljani in ki vplivajo na uspešnost policijskega preiskovanja kaznivih dejanj, kot so npr. slabo obrazloženi predlogi policistov, slabo obrazložene tožilčeve zahteve, nezadostno povratno informiranje policistov o zadevah, ki jih usmerja državni tožilec, slaba komunikacija med policisti in tožilci. Predkazenski postopek kot ga poznamo danes, je bil vzpostavljen leta 1967. Številne spremembe prvega slovenskega Zakona o kazenskem postopku iz leta 1994 so počasi rušile idejno zasnovo kazenskega in s tem tudi predkazenskega postopka, zaradi česar kazenski postopek naj ne bi bil več konsistenten, saj so ga novele potiskale v bolj akuzatorno smer, medtem ko naše kazensko procesno pravo temelji na modelu mešanega kazenskega postopka. Posledično obstajajo težnje po novem modelu kazenskega postopka in tako Ministrstvo za pravosodje že dalj časa pripravlja osnutek novega Zakona o kazenskem postopku. Z vidika predkazenskega postopka bi predlagani model pomenil odpravo preiskovalnega sodnika in uvedbo policijsko˗tožilske preiskave. V literaturi obstajajo stališča za in stališča proti uvedbi takšne preiskave.

Ključne besede

kazensko procesno pravo;diplomska dela;

Podatki

Jezik:	Slovenski jezik
Leto izida:	2016
Tipologija:	2.11 - Diplomsko delo
Organizacija:	UM PF - Pravna fakulteta
Založnik:	[T. Ilić]
UDK:	343.9(043.2)
COBISS:	5407275
Št. ogledov:	1392
Št. prenosov:	134
Ocena:	0 (0 glasov)
Metapodatki:

Ostali podatki

Sekundarni jezik:	Angleški jezik
Sekundarni naslov:	The Functions of Detection and Prosecution of Criminal Offences and their Interrelation
Sekundarni povzetek:	Detection functions and prosecution of criminal offenses are under the jurisdiction of two different, independent authorities – the police as an detection authority and a state prosecutor office as a law enforcement authority against criminal offenses. Both authorities work with the same goal of a successful fight against crime. The specific statutory powers to take enforcement action make them possible to pursue their activities. Two functions junction is so called pre˗trial investigation process of which actor is, in addition to the police and the public prosecutor's office, also the investigating judge. The pre˗trial investigation, as the first phase of the pre˗trial procedure, begins, if there are reasons to suspect that the criminal offense was committed, which is prosecuted ex officio. Actors of the pre˗trial investigation perform so called pre˗processing actions. Often, the police is first aware of the criminal offense. Within the pre˗trial investigation it carries out the pre˗trial operational˗tactical activity in order to detect the criminal offense, its perpetrator and to gather enough information for the state prosecutor to decide whether to initiate criminal prosecution or the criminal offense will not be prosecuted. In addition to informal acts, the police also performs certain procedural actions that may have probative value in the criminal procedures. Dominus litis of the pre˗trial investigation is the state prosecutor's office, as it must be informed of all criminal offenses that are prosecuted ex officio and it may direct the police investigation with instructions, feedback and suggestions. The investigating judge in pre˗trial investigation acts more increasingly as a guarantor judge and not as an active investigation authority. It decides to carry out the investigative actions by the police or the measures application for police to interfere with human rights and freedoms. The final outcome of the pre˗trial investigation depends on the joint work of all its actors. The interrelation between the police and state prosecutor's office is established in the pre˗trial investigation, particularly in criminal acts against the economy, at organized crime acts and at serious criminal offenses of general crime. The Criminal Procedure Act (further as CPA) regulates the pre˗trial investigation by directing the pre˗trial procedure, but this term is described as too narrow. It is a compilation of all the possible interactions between police and state prosecutor's office in the pre˗trial investigation. In their combined operations, police and state prosecutors are facing a number of difficulties resulting from the research of the Institute for Criminology of Faculty of Law in Ljubljana, which are affecting the success of the police criminal investigations, such as poorly reasoned proposals by the policemen, poorly reasoned requests of the state prosecutor, state prosecutor's insufficient feedback information to the police on issues guided by the state prosecutor, and poor communication among police officers and state prosecutors. The pre˗trial investigation as we know it today was in place since 1967. A number of modifications of the first Slovenian CPA of 1994 were slowly destroying the conceptual design of CPA and thus the pre˗trial investigation, resulting the inconsistency, since the amendments have pushed it into more accusatory direction, while our criminal procedural law is based on a mixed model of criminal procedure. Consequently, there are tendencies towards a new model of criminal procedure and thus the Ministry of justice has been preparing a new draft of CPA for a longer period of time. In terms of pre˗trial investigation, the proposed model is to eliminate the investigating judge and to introduce the police and state prosecutorial investigation. In the literature, there can be found aspirations for as well as against the imposition of such an investigation.
Sekundarne ključne besede:	pre˗trial investigation;police;state prosecutor's office;pre˗processing acts;interrelation between the police and state prosecutor;directing pre˗trial investigation;Criminal Procedure Act;draft of Criminal Procedure Act;police and prosecution investigation;
URN:	URN:SI:UM:
Vrsta dela (COBISS):	Diplomsko delo
Komentar na gradivo:	Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Strani:	62 f.
ID:	9168304