https://doi.org/10.21697/zp.2017.17.2.04
Summary
This article concerns the rather controversial amendment of Art. 233 of the Polish Criminal Code, in its part connected with the extension of the principles determining a court expert’s criminal liability in the event of his presenting an erroneous opinion as evidence in proceedings. This modification concerns liability for the privileged type of a prohibited act committed unintentionally. Although the Act of 11th March 2016 on Amendments to the Act on the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure and certain other acts (Ustawa z 11 marca 2016 r. o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks postępowania karnego oraz niektórych innych ustaw), applies not only to court experts but also to certified experts and sworn translators and interpreters, this paper concentrates on issues related only to the criminal liability of court experts who take part in criminal proceedings.
Apart from addressing the terminological aspect of the terms used in the Polish legislation for the following concepts: biegły (expert), rzeczoznawca (certified expert), and specjalista (specialist), which the author discusses in order to determine who may be liable under Article 233 § 4a of the Polish Criminal Code, he also refers to the notion of unintentional falsehood. he then gives a general analysis of the premises for liability for an act committed in this way.
The author considers the extension of a court expert’s criminal liability under Art. 233 § 4 of the Polish Criminal for unintentional presentation of a false opinion in the light of the relevant normative context. This context includes both the legal institutions operating prior to the amendment (for instance, Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code) as well as those introduced at the same time as the amendment, which allow the court to reduce or even refuse to pay the expert’s professional fees for an unreliable opinion (Articles 618 § 4a and § 4b of the Polish Criminal Procedure Code). This paper also observes the difficulties which may occur in determining the legal consequences of an unclear, incomplete or self-contradictory expert opinion. Under the new regulation the expert may be asked to revise or correct his opinion, or he may have his fee reduced, and in the extreme case a defective opinion may even lead to the expert’s criminal liability. Doubts concerning the coherence of the amendment also involve concurrent liability. In the case analysed in this paper the expert may be arrested on the grounds of Art. 287 § 2 of the Polish Criminal Procedure Code; under Chapter 31 of the Criminal Code arrest is one of the penalties for breach of order.
Download files
Citation rules
Cited by / Share
English
Italiano
Język Polski