Discrepancies Between the Application of the Right of Defence and the Culture of the Criminal Process

The importance of ethical boundaries in the exercise of the right of defence has been written about for a long time. The defendants’ use of the entitlement granted to them by the legislator (Article 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) should harmonise with respecting the culture of criminal proceedings. Meanwhile, as practice has demonstrated, the culture of ongoing proceedings often remains outside the required standards of the process. The use of so-called “evasive defence”, assessment of participants to the proceedings through the prism of stereotypes, demonstrating offensive behaviour towards representatives of procedural bodies, or a superficial analysis of the evidence collected reinforce the negative perception of the course of proceedings, thus promoting inappropriate procedural patterns. Furthermore, these situations form the basis for the emergence of judicial mistakes, which usually leave a lasting mark on the further fate of the plaintiff in court. In accordance with theoretical assumptions, effectiveness in the exercise of rights of defence (Article 6 of the CCP) should correlate not only with the fundamental objectives of criminal proceedings (Article 2 of the CCP) but also with well-established assumptions that comply with the standards of diligence as broadly understood, along with the fulfilment of the procedural guarantees of the parties to the proceedings. This paper focuses on crucial issues related to the ethical boundaries of the exercise of the rights of defence. The issues discussed herein are supported by conclusions drawn from the analysis of the outcomes of case studies.