Description of the facts
A.B. he was accused of having at the trial pending before the territory Court of T., in Case II K 595/19, v The President and S.L., accused of an act under Article 158 § 1 of the KK in conjunction with Article 64 § 1 of the KK, before the body appointed for judgement falsely accused The president to commit to his injury a prohibited act involving the acquisition of a mobile telephone worth PLN 600, consequently The President he was convicted of an act he did not commit, i.e. an act under Article 234 KK.
The territory Court of T., by judgement of 23.6.2021, II K 151/21, acknowledged A.B. for guilty of committing the alleged offence and for doing so under Article 234 KK, he sentenced the suspect to 3 months' imprisonment, whose execution has been suspended for a probationary period of 2 years (Article 69(1) KK and Article 70(2) KK).
This ruling was finalized on 1.7.2021 in the face of the parties not contesting it.
The conviction has been dismissed in favour of the suspect by the lawyer General. He challenged him in his entirety and accused him of gross and materially affecting the content of the judgement of a violation of criminal law, namely Article 7 of the NCP, Article 366(1) of the NCP in conjunction with Article 167 of the NCP and Article 410 of the NCP.
In the conclusions of the cassation, the applicant requested that the judgement under appeal be set aside and that the case be referred to the territory Court of T. for review.
The ultimate Court, after examining the cassation brought in favour of the defendant-general, annulled the contested judgement and referred the case to the territory Court of T. for re-examination in the first instance proceedings.
Reasons for SN
In the view of the ultimate Court, the cassation of the Prosecutor-General is of course justified in favour of the convicted person, and could so be full taken into account at the sitting on the basis of Article 535(5) of the NCP.
The position of the lawyer General should be full shared that there has been a serious breach in the present case of the provisions set out in the plea of cassation, which, in view of the nature of those deficiencies and their consequences, had a crucial impact on the content of the judgment.
As has been pointed out respective times in the judicature of the ultimate Court and the common courts, it is the primary work of the court ruling in criminal matters to bring a judgement based on material fact (Article 2 of the NCP) and its comprehensive analysis. Although it is frequently not possible to get all the essential evidence and shortcomings in this respect should be assessed according to the reality of the peculiar case. However, erstwhile the evidence is at the disposal of the court, and this is due to negligence it does not become acquainted and builds on it, this constitutes a gross violation of substantive law, including Article 410 of the NCP and Article 366 of the NCP. The function of a court under Article 366(1) of the NCP is to clarify, as is widely accepted in criminal courts’ case law, essential circumstances of the case, judged by the prism of the implementation of the rule of material truth, i.e. by the evaluation of actual findings. The president not only formally directs the hearing, but should besides influence the conduct of the evidence proceedings in order to lead to nonsubjective reproduction of events, in accordance with their actual course. Infringement of Article 366 § 1 of the NCP must be decided by the prism of the realization of material truth, i.e. by the evaluation of the actual findings made (judgment of 9.1.2020, IV KK 641/19, Legalis).
By referring the above to the grounds of the case in question, it must be pointed out that, although the territory Court of T. in Case II K 151/21, among others, revealed without reading, pursuant to Article 405(2) and (4) of the NCP, all papers and protocols in the case file of II K 151/21, including the minutes for the adoption of oral announcement of the offence and proceeding of the witness The President, in which the aforementioned refers straight to the evidence gathered in the case of the territory Court in T., II K 595/19, in particular: the recording of the monitoring on which the course of the criminal offence was recorded, the evidence A.B. (injured in that case) and witness evidence A.S., presenting them in subjective terms, as well as a copy of the judgement of the territory Court of T. of 30.7.2020, II K 595/19 together with its justification, attached to the announcement of the anticipation of committing a crime. According to this evidence, The President was convicted of stealing a telephone to the detriment of A.B., as testified A.B. and A.S. a evidence of the industrial monitoring on which the full event was recorded, including the telephone call by The President At the same time, however, the court refused to believe the evidence of these witnesses made at the main proceedings to which he referred The President providing a announcement of crime, recognising it as illogical, internally contradictory and non-coverable in another evidence deemed credible.
It follows from the examination of the file of Case II K 595/19 that the appeal court in the judgement of 22.1.2021, IV Ka 717/20, Legalis approved without reservation the uncovering of the court meriti with respect to the conduct of criminal events, including the theft of a telephone for harm A.B. However, he stated that: "The version of the victim's trial was changed under force from the defendants."
In this state of affairs, it must be agreed with the complainant that the fundamental work of the court meriti have been subjected to an in-depth assessment of the evidence that meets the requirements laid down in Article 7 of the NCP The President, the defendant's explanations A.B. and a witness The President in the context of whether or not there has actually been a false accusation The President About stealing a phone. Faced with doubts about conduct A.B. It was essential to let evidence of the case of the territory Court in T., II K 595/19 and to face in depth the material collected there with the deposits of persons made in this proceeding. Without dispute, specified action by the court shall not prejudice the rule of jurisdiction of the criminal court laid down in Article 8(1) of the NCP. It is clear that what is different is that the court deciding on the criminal liability of a peculiar individual based on the findings made by another court or body, and what is different is the usage of evidence collected in another proceedings for making its own independent factual findings in criminal proceedings (order of the ultimate Court of 3.6.2020, IV KK 511/19, Legalis).
Failure to do so led to a judgement resulting from a gross breach of procedural law having a crucial impact on the content of the judgement as it led to a conviction A.B. for the conduct of Article 234 of the KK where evidence raised reasonable doubts. The essential circumstances of the case have not been clarified, as a consequence of which the in creto actual findings are not based on complete evidence. Nor are the papers and protocols in evidence that cast uncertainty on the allegations of false accusation already included. A appropriate gathering of evidence, on the another hand, could lead to a diametrically different solution, including acquittal.
The accuracy of the arguments contained in the erasure does not cast any doubt. Its author rightly pointed out that the territory Court in T. did not take into account the circumstances revealed during the main proceedings in Case II K 151/21. They called into question the merits of the allegation that the A.B. the action under Article 234 of the KK, indicating at the same time the request to supplement the evidence, in peculiar by authorising ex officio evidence of the examination of the case II K 595/19 of the territory Court of T. That evidence should then be provided for evaluation in order to clarify all applicable circumstances of the case and to issue a conviction based on complete evidence.
