PRAWO W DZIAŁANIU 63/4

Barbara Janusz-Pohl, Stephen Terrett, Andrea Zampini, Michał Wawrzyńczak

Modele oskarżania w państwach systemów common law i systemów prawa kontynentalnego

Prawo w Działaniu 2025, tom 63

https://doi.org/10.32041/pwd.6304

Streszczenie

Przedmiotem niniejszego artykułu jest analiza modelu oskarżania w sprawach karnych na przykładzie wybranych regulacji typowych dla państw systemów common law i państw systemów kontynentalnych. W ramach analizy wyróżniono cztery kluczowe aspekty: kompetencyjny, deontyczny (dyskrecjonalności w znaczeniu przedmiotowym i wewnętrznym) oraz dyskrecjonalności w znaczeniu zewnętrznym (kontrolnym), a wreszcie element związany z dyspozycyjnością. W tle rozważań pozostają inne cechy modeli postępowań przede wszystkim odnoszące się do zasady legalizmu oportunizmu, prawdy, kontradyktoryjności i struktury procesu (zwłaszcza stadialności). Celem opracowania było ustalenie tego, w jakim stopniu poszczególne cechy modeli oskarżania podlegają hybrydyzacji oraz czy wykazują podatność na recepcje w modelu konkurencyjnym.

Bibliografia

1. About CPS, https://www.cps.gov.uk/about-cps.
2. About the Prosecution Service, https://anklagemyndigheden.dk/en/about-the-prosecution-service.
3. Beety V.E., Judicial Dismissal in the Interest of Justice, Missouri Law Review 2015, t. 80, https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol80/iss3/5.
4. Bell V., The James Spigelman Oration 2016: Judicial Legitimacy and the Limits of Review, https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/current-justices/bellj/bell22Nov2016.pdf.
5. Bibas S., Harmonizing Substantive-Criminal-Law Values and Criminal Procedure: The Case of Alford and Nolo Contendere Pleas, Cornell Law Review 2003, t. 88, nr 5, http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol88/iss5/3.
6. Biral M., Neroni Rezende I., Santangelo A., Minimalistic Transposition and Substantial Protection in the Implementation of the EU Defence Rights Directives, [w:] Effective Protection of the Rights of the Accused in the EU Directives, red. G. Contissa, G. Lasagni, M. Caianiello, G. Sartor, Leiden 2022.
7. Caianiello M., Increasing Discretionary Prosecutor’s Powers: The Pivotal Role of the Italian Prosecutor in the Pretrial Investigation Phase, Oxford 2016.
8. Camon A., Il giudice per le indagini preliminari, [w:] Camon, E. Cesari, M. Daniele, M.L. Di Bitonto, D. Negri, P.P. Paulesu, Fondamenti di procedura penale, Padova 2023.
9. Can Charges Be Dropped After Indictment?, https://candicefieldslaw.com/news/can-charges-be-dropped-after-indictment/.
10. Capone A., Iura novit curia, Padova 2010.
11. Caprioli F., L’archiviazione, Napoli 1994.
12. Cassibba F., L’imputazione e le sue vicende, Milano 2016.
13. Chiavario M., Obbligatorietà dell’azione penale: il principio e la realtà, [w:] Il pubblico ministero oggi, Milano 1994.
14. Code for Crown Prosecutors, London 2018, https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors.
15. Committal Process, https://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/prosecution-guidance/steps-in-the-prosecution-process/committal-process.
16. Corns C., Prosecution Accountability and Judicial Review, Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 2022, t. 53, nr 1, https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/VUWLawRw/2022/1.pdf.
17. Country Profile – Spain, https://rm.coe.int/country-profile-spain-en/1680a9673e.
18. Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function, Standard 3-1.2 – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor; Standard 3-4.4 – Discretion in Filing, Declining, Maintaining and Dismissing Criminal Charges, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/resources/standards/prosecution-function/.
19. Criminal Resource Manual § 236 – Amendment of Indictments, https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-236-amendment-indictments.
20. Daniele M., La revoca, [w:] Camon, E. Cesari, M. Daniele, M.L. Di Bitonto, D. Negri, P.P. Paulesu, Fondamenti di procedura penale, Padova 2023.
21. Daniele M., La sentenza di non luogo a procedure, [w:] Camon, E. Cesari, M. Daniele, M.L. Di Bitonto, D. Negri, P.P. Paulesu, Fondamenti di procedura penale, Padova 2023.
22. Director’s Guidance on Charging, London 2020, https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/directors-guidance-charging-sixth-edition-december-2020-incorporating-national-file.
23. Dismissal with Prejudice, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dismissal_with_prejudice.
24. Dismissal without Prejudice, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dismissal_without_prejudice.
25. Double Jeopardy, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy.
26. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 48 – Dismissal, https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_48.
27. Gabrielli C., L’archiviazione per particolare tenuità del fatto analisi, rilievi critici e prospettive, Torino 2020.
28. Gabrielli C., Zampini A., Between efficiency urges and expectations of justice in the Italian system. Deflation profiles of case dismissal for particular tenuity of the criminal act and for oblation, [w:] Effective Justice: International and Comparative Approaches – Challenges of Digital Transformation, red. B. Janusz-Pohl, Berlin 2025, https://doi.org/10.3726/b22742.
29. Giostra G., L’archiviazione. Lineamenti sistematici e questioni interpretative, Torino
30. Grevi V., Pubblico ministero e azione penale: riforme costituzionali o per legge ordinaria?, Diritto penale e processo 1997.
31. Hodgson N., Cashmore J., Cowdery N., Goodman-Delahunty J., Martschuk N., Parkinson P., Powell M.B., Shackel R., The Decision to Prosecute: A Comparative Analysis of Australian Prosecutorial Guidelines, Criminal Law Journal 2020, t. 44, nr 3, https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/items/32e96448-0091-4db4-a771-dcd4394bd4d5.
32. How a Criminal Case Works, https://www.cps.gov.uk/about-cps/how-a-criminal-case-works.
33. How we make our decisions, https://www.cps.gov.uk/about-cps/how-we-make-our-decisions.
34. Jacoby J.E., Ratledge E.C., The Power of the Prosecutor: Gatekeepers of the Criminal Justice System, Santa Barbara 2016.
35. Janusz-Pohl B., Konwencjonalizm i formalizm postępowania dowodowego, [w:] System Prawa Karnego Procesowego, t. 8, cz. 1, Dowody, red. J. Skorupka, Warszawa 2019.
36. Janusz-Pohl , O odwołalności postulatywnego oświadczenia woli w procesie karnym, Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 2014, t. 76, nr 1, https://doi.org/10.14746/rpeis.2014.76.1.4.
37. Janusz-Pohl B., Uwagi na marginesie książki Jana Jodłowskiego „Zasady prawdy materialnej w postępowaniu karnym. Analiza w perspektywie funkcji prawa karnego” Warszawa 2015, Ius Novum 2016, t. 10, nr 3.
38. Janusz-Pohl B., Warunki dopuszczalności procesu karnego, [w:] Polski proces karny, red. P. Wiliński, Warszawa 2022.
39. Janusz-Pohl B., Wawrzyńczak M., Study on general characteristics of consensual procedures and reform trends, [w:] Consensual Mechanisms in Criminal Proceedings – Integrative and Comparative Perspective, red. S. Pawelec, Berlin–Bern–Bruxelles–New York–Oxford–Warszawa–Wien 2023.
40. Justice Manual, Title 9-27.000 – Principles of Federal Prosecution: 9-27.220 – Grounds for Commencing or Declining Prosecution, 9-27.230 – Initiating and Declining Charges – Substantial Federal Interest, 9-27.240 – Initiating and Declining Charges – Prosecution in Another Jurisdiction, https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution.
41. Kremens K., Powers of the Prosecutor in Criminal Investigation: A Comparative Perspective, London 2021, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003018247.
42. Kuczyńska H., Komponenty rozprawy w modelu anglosaskim i kontynentalnym, [w:] Analiza porównawcza modelu rozprawy głównej. Między kontradyktoryjnością a inkwizycyjnością, Warszawa 2022.
43. Marafioti L., Italian Criminal Procedure: A System Caught Between Two Traditions, [w:] Crime, Procedure and Evidence in a Comparative and International Context, red. J. Jackson, M. Langer, P. Tillers, London 2008.
44. Mardemootoo B., 50 years on: the Birmingham Six, miscarriages of justice, and the fight for truth, https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/resource/50-years-on-the-birmingham-six-miscarriages-of-justice-and-the-fight-for-truth.html.
45. May J., Report of the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the convictions arising out of the bomb attacks in Guildford and Woolwich in 1974, London 1994, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c290540f0b645ba3c7137/0449.pdf.
46. Nolo contendere, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/nolo_contendere.
47. Philips C., Report. Presented to Parliament by Command of Her Majesty, London 1981, https://www.ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/royal_commission_on_criminal_procedure-report.pdf.
48. Plea discussions in cases of serious or complex fraud, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/plea-discussions-in-cases-of-serious-or-complex-fraud–8.
49. Police Powers to Prosecute Strengthened, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/police-powers-to-prosecute-strengthened.
50. Police Prosecutions Command, https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/about_us/organisational_structure/units/police_prosecutions_command.
51. Police Prosecutions, https://www.police.vic.gov.au/police-prosecutions.
52. Poyser S., A 50-year battle for truth: the Birmingham pub bombings and the price of injustice, https://www.aber.ac.uk/en/lac/news/news-article/title-277431-en.html.
53. Prosecution Policy of the Australian Capital Territory, https://www.dpp.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/1395263/prosecution-policy-of-the-australian-capital-territory.pdf.
54. Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth as updated 19 July 2021, https://www.cdpp.gov.au/sites/default/files/Prosecution_Policy_of_the_Commonwealth_as_updated_19_July%202021.pdf.
55. Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth, https://www.cdpp.gov.au/prosecution-policy.
56. Quattrocoolo S., Riqualificazione del fatto nella sentenza penale e tutela del contraddittorio, Napoli 2011.
57. Relations with Other Prosecuting Agencies and the Prosecutors’ Convention, https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/relations-other-prosecuting-agencies-and-prosecutors-convention.
58. Ruggieri F., Il principio di obbligatorietà dell’azione penale oggi: confini e prospettive, Criminalia 2010.
59. Spain: Advice Note on the Right to a Lawyer, https://www.fairtrials.org/app/uploads/2022/01/Spain-advice-note.pdf.
60. Statement of Prosecution Policy and Guidelines 2022, https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2022-07/DPP_Statement_of_Prosecution_Policy_and_Guidelines_2022.pdf.
61. Statement of Prosecution Policy and Guidelines, https://www.dpp.sa.gov.au/documents/DPP-Prosecution-and-Policy-Guidelines.pdf.
62. Steinberg M.I., Dismissal with or without Prejudice under the Speedy Trial Act: A Proposed Interpretation, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1977, t. 68, https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol68/iss1/1.
63. Steps in the prosecution process, https://www.cdpp.gov.au/prosecution-process/steps-prosecution.
64. Świecki D., [w:] Kodeks postępowania karnego, t. 1, Komentarz aktualizowany, B. Augustyniak, K. Eichstaedt, M. Kurowski, D. Świecki, LEX/el. 2025.
65. Terrett S., Proceed with caution? Human rights concerns arising from the use of out-of-court disposals to improve efficiency in the criminal justice system, [w:] Effective Justice: International and Comparative Approaches – Challenges of Digital Transformation, red. B. Janusz-Pohl, Berlin 2025, https://doi.org/10.3726/b22742.
66. The Code for Crown Prosecutors – Sections 4 & 5: The Full Code Test and The Threshold Test, https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors.
67. The Decision to Prosecute, https://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/prosecution-guidance/prosecution-guidelines/chapter-2.
68. The Director of Public Prosecutions, https://www.riksadvokaten.no/english/.
69. The Disappearing Trial. Towards a Rights-Based Approach to Trial Waiver Systems, https://www.fairtrials.org/app/uploads/2022/01/The-Disappearing-Trial-report.pdf.
70. The Role of the Prosecutor, https://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/prosecution-guidance/prosecution-guidelines/chapter-1.
71. Vicoli D., Nuovi equilibri delle indagini preliminari, [w:] Riassetti della penalità, razionalizzazione del procedimento di primo grado, giustizia riparativa, E.M. Catalano, R.E. Kostoris, R. Orlandi, Torino 2023.
72. Victims and Witnesses, https://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/prosecution-guidance/prosecution-guidelines/chapter-12.
73. Ward J., Transforming ‘Summary Justice’ Through Police-led Prosecution and ‘Virtual Courts’: Is ‘Procedural Due Process’ Being Undermined?, The British Journal of Criminology 2015, t. 55, nr 2, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azu077.
74. Wawrzyńczak M., Consensual Proposals – Recommendations of the European Court of Human Rights, [w:] Consensual Mechanisms in Criminal Proceedings – Integrative and Comparative Perspective, red. S. Pawelec, Berlin–Bern–Bruxelles–New York–Oxford–Warszawa–Wien 2023.
75. Wawrzyńczak M., Securing Effective Collection of Evidence: An Overview of Various Approaches to Interrogation Techniques, [w:] Effective Justice: International and Comparative Approaches – Challenges of Digital Transformation, red. B. Janusz-Pohl, Berlin 2025, https://doi.org/10.3726/b22742.
76. Weigend T., Germany, [w:] Toward a Prosecutor of the European Union, t. 1, A Comparative Analysis, K. Ligeti, London 2013.
77. What Does it Mean to be Indicted by a Grand Jury?, https://www.law.uw.edu/news-events/news/2024/what-does-it-mean-to-be-indicted-by-a-grand-jury.
78. What Does It Mean When Criminal Charges Are Dropped?, https://www.keglawyers.com/dropped-criminal-charges.
79. What Happens When Charges Are Dropped?, https://atx.legal/what-happens-when-charges-are-dropped/.
80. What is the role of prosecutors?, http://victimsandwitnesses.cdpp.gov.au/your-role-and-prosecution/people-involved-prosecution-process/what-role-prosecutors.
81. With Prejudice, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/with_prejudice.

Jak cytować

B. Janusz-Pohl, S. Terrett, A. Zampini, M. Wawrzyńczak, Modele oskarżania w państwach systemów common law i systemów prawa kontynentalnego, Prawo w Działaniu 2025, t. 63, https://doi.org/10.32041/pwd.6304