Pursuant to the new provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the evidentiary request is dismissed if it was submitted after the deadline set by the procedural authority, of which the party submitting the request was notified.
An evidential request cannot be refused on this basis if the circumstance to be proved is relevant to determining whether:
- a criminal act has been committed,
- the act constitutes a crime,
- the offense was committed under conditions of recidivism,
- it was the act of the perpetrator, who made himself a permanent source of income from committing the crime,
- the perpetrator commits a crime by acting in an organized group or association aimed at committing a crime,
- the perpetrator committed a terrorist offense,
- there are conditions to stay in a psychiatric institution.
Amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure are to accelerate the criminal process. Controversy, however, is whether this will not limit the defendant’s right of defense too much. Some argue that the introduction of evidence inclusion is a departure from the fundamental principle of material truth, which may result in unfair judgments. Lawyers note that the court is equipped with other tools to prevent delaying proceedings by submitting unfounded evidence. An example is art. 170 par 1 points 1-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which the court dismisses the evidence in the event that the circumstance is irrelevant to the resolution of the case, the evidence is not useful for ascertaining a given circumstance, whether it is already proved, when evidence cannot be taken or when the application is intended to extend the proceedings. In their opinion, no further restriction is necessary.
It should be emphasized that the evidence of the circumstances of the perpetration and culpability that are key to the case are free of any inclusion. Defenders of the amendment also point out that the adopted line of defense is usually aimed at demonstrating that the accused did not commit the act he was accused of, so in this respect, evidence inclusion should not limit the defender. In the justification of the draft amendment, it was argued that it was intended in this way to curtail in particular the evidence of the circumstances affecting the sentence.
Some lawyers began to circumvent the new provision by submitting requests to extend the deadline for submitting evidence.
