The status and conditions for the judicial system’s use of the so-called institution of the small crown witness need to be refined; this particularly concerns situations where the testimony of such a person is the only incriminating evidence that could lead to wrongful convictions – says the Commissioner for Human Rights.
Problems related to the functioning of the so-called institution of the small crown witness not only have not lost their relevance, but in the light of the latest legislative initiatives of 2022, they require even greater attention and preparation of an appropriate, comprehensive response, correcting the accumulated normative shortcomings and exponential doubts in the world. application of this institution
– the Ombudsman stressed Marcin Wiącek in a letter to the Ministry of Justice posted on the website of the Commissioner for Human Rights on Monday.
The term “petty key witness” is used to describe an offender who subsequently cooperates with law enforcement authorities in exchange for leniency for the crime committed. Under the current wording of the Criminal Code, “at the request of the prosecutor, the court shall apply an extraordinary mitigation of the sentence and may even conditionally suspend its execution in connection with the offender’s cooperation with other persons in the commission of a crime, if he discloses to the body responsible for the prosecution of crimes information about persons participating in the commission of the crime and the relevant circumstances of its commission.”
At the request of the public prosecutor, the court may exercise extraordinary clemency or even conditionally suspend its execution against the perpetrator of a crime who, regardless of the explanation given in his case, has disclosed it to a law enforcement authority and has adduced significant circumstances previously unknown to that authority, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than five years
– is also provided for in the Criminal Code.
Constitutional doubts
In his speech, the Ombudsman pointed out that the current wording of these provisions has taken this form since the autumn of 2023, following the amendment adopted in 2022, and that the court now “applies extraordinary clemency to such a person only at the request of the prosecutor and may conditionally suspend its implementation”.
This transfers the decision on whether the court can apply this institution to the public prosecutor, raising constitutional doubts
– the Ombudsman assessed.
According to the Commissioner for Human Rights, when amending these regulations, the following should be taken into account: mandatory recording of hearings involving the so-called minor crown witness, the enforcement of the cooperation of the ‘minor crown witness’ in court on pain of losing this status, as well as “the collection by the court for statistical purposes of data on the participation of the ‘minor crown witness’ in criminal proceedings.”
The Commissioner asks (…) to analyse the recurring problems and to consider taking legislative action in this area. He also asks for a position
— wrote Wiącek in his letter to the head of the Ministry of Justice, Adam Bodnar. As he said, he sent copies of the speech to the chairs of the legislative committees of the Sejm and the Senate.
Issues of comprehensive changes in criminal law are currently being dealt with by the Commission for the Codification of Criminal Law, which was reactivated this year at the Ministry of Justice.
tkwl/PAP
Source: wPolityce