Some Remarks for the Law as It Should Stand in the Matter of State’s Evidence Witness’ Testimony

Abstract

The article addresses the slightly anachronistic, in the author’s opinion, institution of state’s evidence witness, whose current legislative shape may raise objections, in particular from the point of view of the application of the principle of equality before the law. The study presents a few conclusions on the law as it should stand (de lege ferenda), which, if implemented, could be used to optimize the legal solutions provided for in the Act on State’s Evidence. The article puts forward, among other things, the proposal to include the subsidiarity principle in the discussed institution, kind of like the requirement relating to operational surveillance, which is also debatable in moral and juridical terms, as it leads to restrictions, which is also not indisputable in the moral and juridical sense. The article also refers to the wording of Article 6 of the aforementioned Act, which provides for a rule that eliminates evidence from the suspect who ultimately did not acquire the status of a state’s evidence witness. According to the author, the approach under this rule is too broad and imprecise, thus it requires an appropriate correction.

Keywords

• świadek koronny