Magazine Státní zastupitelství 1/2016
- Constitutional and legal position of the Prosecutor’s office (Jan Musil)
- From the indirect to direct offend (through quasi complicity sui generis), or impunity? (Vladimír Kratochvíl)
- Towards the conditions for the application of the qualified merits of a crime in terms of culpability, or a reflection on two decisions (Ivo Kouřil)
- “Do we need or not?“ Cooperation with Prosecutors and the Probation and Mediation Service in context of work with offenders (Jan Tomášek, Jan Rozum, Jiří Vlach)
- Need for subsequent justification for a search warrant as an exigent or unrepeatable act (Veronika Pochylá)
- Alternatives to the Criminal Proceedings in England (Jana Kursová)
Annotation of Articles from Státní zastupitelství 1/2016
prof. JUDr. Jan Musil, CSc., soudce Ústavního soudu, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
The author intends to talk about the need for constitutional change in the status of public action towards strengthening its independence. A possible solution would be to include the prosecutor’s office into the judiciary.
prof. JUDr. Vladimír Kratochvíl, CSc., poradce Oddělení dokumentace a analytiky judikatury Nejvyššího soudu, e-mail: email@example.com
The article responds to court decisions in the particular case of premeditative murder in terms of committing its forms: Courts I. and II. degrees asses the offense as a juvenile indirect offend, whereas the Appellate Court as a direct offend. The author is led to believe to the lower courts, because the opinion of the Appellate Court seems as discordant with the prohibition of analogy, borne in Criminal Law and subsidiarity of criminal repression.
Towards the conditions for the application of the qualified merits of a crime in terms of culpability, or a reflection on two decisions
JUDr. Ivo Kouřil, soudce Nejvyššího soudu, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Based on two decisions, the article deals with the issue of culpability with a more serious effect – grievous bodily harm, as an element of qualified merits of the crime of robbery. It points out the deliberate form of an attempted criminal offence which is crucial for determining this type of culpability relating to the above mentioned element of the qualified merits with a perpetrator of the crime judged according to § 21, Para. 1, to § 173, Para. 1, Para. 2, Sub-para b), Criminal Code. In the event that the more serious effect was caused by the actions of one of the joint-offenders, the article emphasizes need for an individual assessment of culpability in relation to each offender participating in the offence.
“Do we need or not?“ Cooperation with Prosecutors and the Probation and Mediation Service in context of work with offenders
PhDr. Jan Tomášek, Ph.D., Mgr. Jan Rozum, Mgr. Jiří Vlach, Institut pro kriminologii a sociální prevenci
The cooperation between different agencies of the criminal justice system is one of the basic condition of the effective application of diversion to criminal proceeding and alternatives to prison. The research of the Institute of Criminology and Social Prevention reveals the experience of public prosecutors and the chiefs of Probation and Mediation Service offices. Altough most of them evaluate the level of the mutual cooperation as good, there are some regions in the Czech Republic, where the concurrence is very poor. The statitistics confirm it too. The clash between the princip of speed of the criminal process on the one hand and the princip of individualisation of the punishment on the other, could be one of the main reason of this situation. The research also indicates that respondents are aware of the limits of criminal justice system in the field of crime control. In accordance with criminal career research, they recommend to focus on the appropriate social policy, in particular the employment and housing of people releasing from prison.
Mgr. Veronika Pochylá, doktorandka Katedry trestního práva Prf UP, vedoucí referent vědy a výzkumu, organizační asistent Centra pro klinické právní vzdělávání, e-mail: email@example.com
House search is one of the institutes of the criminal procedural law which perceptibly intervenes with rights and legitimate interests of persons suspected of committing crime. If it is moreover issued before commencing with criminal prosecution, the law places stricter conditions upon which a warrant may be issued, such as through reasoning of necessity to perform house search in the stage of examination of prosecution, e.g. as an indispensable and unrepeatable act. The text focuses on assessing the legitimacy of the legal requirements on the reasoning of the warrant in judicature of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. In the conclusion it offers the possible solution to the different perception of requirements for the due reasoning of the warrant in form of legislative amendment.
Mgr. Bc. Jana Kursová, doktorandka na Katedře trestního práva Prf MU, asistentka soudce Ústavního soudu, e-mail: Jana.Kursova@usoud.cz
The objective of this article is to introduce particular forms of alternatives to prosecution which are in use in England and closely describe conditions of its application and relevant legislation. First of all, the general basis of out of court disposals is outlined. Secondly are closely described particular forms (community resolution, warning, penalty notice for disorder, youth caution, adult simple caution, youth conditional caution and adult conditional caution).