Aktywność sądu i przewodniczącego składu orzekającego w postępowaniu przed sądem karnym I instancji

Equipping the court with the possibility of an active conduct is a derivative of the standpoint assuming that the penal procedure – as an institution of the public law – justifies the duty to take into account in it not only the private interest, but – primarily – interests of the administration of justice and society. The activity of the court manifests itself through managing a court hearing, the initiative in the sphere of dealing with evidence, running proceedings to take evidence, including examination. The manner of presiding over a hearing, like the remaining elements of the court’s activity, should – however – guarantee a sufficient scope for initiative of the parties and offer them a full possibility to express their own standpoint in the trial. Otherwise, it can become an element limiting the contradictoriness of the court hearing. The court of law and the president of the adjudication board safeguard that a dispute is run on the basis of legal regulations. The legislator imposes a special duty on the president of the adjudication board to see to it that the hearing is run in compliance with the regulations of proceedings and that the goal it serves is reached. The court, being one of the subjects in criminal proceedings, as regards the scope of establishing the factual state of the case appears both in the character in which its position stands close to those of the other subjects and in yet another character that is typical of itself exclusively: it is the subject that conducts proceedings to take evidence and then evaluates the results of the proceedings Thus, it depends on the degree of court’s activity in this respect whether, in a given case, it means a contentious procedure in its classic framework or an investigative proceeding with limited contradictoriness. In the case of effective and active role of the prosecution and the defence, an exhaustive carrying out of proceedings to take evidence, there is little space left for the court’s activity within the sphere of proceeding to take evidence. In consequence of the latter, the court will be able to concentrate on the proper evaluation and settling of the case. A reverse situation can result in ‘pushing’ the court into one direction, which – in compliance with the principles in force regarding penal procedure – should not happen. The regulations of the code of penal procedure make a contradictory dispute possible, they only have to be used in an appropriate way.