Introduction
Introduction
The institution of public prosecution service appeared in the Polish territories at the beginning of the nineteenth century, during the period of partition between Prussia, Austria and Russia (1795-1918). The prosecution service was created after regaining independence in 1918. From 1929 to 1950, the public prosecution service was attached to the courts. The service was established at three levels: prosecutors of the Supreme Court, prosecutors of appellate courts and prosecutors of regional courts. The service was under control of the Minister of Justice who had the position of Prosecutor General. The task of the public prosecutor was mainly to act as party in criminal trials. He also had powers to carry out an inquiry, a less formal type of preparatory proceeding, and to carry out certain more formal acts during the investigation, which was led by the investigating judge.
This model was changed by the Prosecution Service Act 1950. Under this Act, the public prosecution service was separated from the courts, and established as an independent body controlled by the Council of State. The tasks of the service were extended by adding the so called general supervision of legal acts, decisions and other activities of public authorities and other entities. The exact nature of supervision was adapted again in 1967 and named ‘public prosecutor’s control over obedience to the law’.
Nowadays, the structure of the public prosecution service is regulated by the Prosecution Service Act 1985 (henceforth named PSA), which has been amended several times since its promulgation. The organization of the service has been widely criticized, mainly because of the lack of independence and links with politics. That is why there have been many propositions and initiatives to change the concept of the public prosecution service, especially at the top level through separating the functions of the Minister of Justice and the Prosecutor General. It is hard to predict whether the attempts have a chance to succeed in the near future, but it is clear that some changes are needed.
Apart from the above mentioned PSA and the Code of Criminal Procedure (here after CCP) passed by the Parliament in 1997, detailed regulations concerning the work of the public prosecutor were put in the Code of conduct of common units of public prosecution service 1992.
Today, the organization and powers of public prosecution service are not regulated by the Constitution, a situation that has often been criticized. The reason given for leaving out inclusion of provisions concerning the service was that it would be much more difficult to make any changes to it then. One can accept this justification, but on the other hand some neutral provisions in the Constitution would certainly strengthen the position of the public prosecution service, and underline its role in a democratic society.
It has to be mentioned, that the public prosecution service also encompasses military units, but specific features of this branch of the service will not be dealt with in this study.
Before we start, one remark has to be made: the name of the public prosecution service is prokuratura, and the name of its member is prokurator. The prokurator – as will be shown later – is the main but not the only public prosecutor. Nevertheless, I will talk about the public prosecutor having in mind the procurator with a short reference to other public prosecutors where this is useful.
The institution of public prosecution service appeared in the Polish territories at the beginning of the nineteenth century, during the period of partition between Prussia, Austria and Russia (1795-1918). The prosecution service was created after regaining independence in 1918. From 1929 to 1950, the public prosecution service was attached to the courts. The service was established at three levels: prosecutors of the Supreme Court, prosecutors of appellate courts and prosecutors of regional courts. The service was under control of the Minister of Justice who had the position of Prosecutor General. The task of the public prosecutor was mainly to act as party in criminal trials. He also had powers to carry out an inquiry, a less formal type of preparatory proceeding, and to carry out certain more formal acts during the investigation, which was led by the investigating judge.
This model was changed by the Prosecution Service Act 1950. Under this Act, the public prosecution service was separated from the courts, and established as an independent body controlled by the Council of State. The tasks of the service were extended by adding the so called general supervision of legal acts, decisions and other activities of public authorities and other entities. The exact nature of supervision was adapted again in 1967 and named ‘public prosecutor’s control over obedience to the law’.
Nowadays, the structure of the public prosecution service is regulated by the Prosecution Service Act 1985 (henceforth named PSA), which has been amended several times since its promulgation. The organization of the service has been widely criticized, mainly because of the lack of independence and links with politics. That is why there have been many propositions and initiatives to change the concept of the public prosecution service, especially at the top level through separating the functions of the Minister of Justice and the Prosecutor General. It is hard to predict whether the attempts have a chance to succeed in the near future, but it is clear that some changes are needed.
Apart from the above mentioned PSA and the Code of Criminal Procedure (here after CCP) passed by the Parliament in 1997, detailed regulations concerning the work of the public prosecutor were put in the Code of conduct of common units of public prosecution service 1992.
Today, the organization and powers of public prosecution service are not regulated by the Constitution, a situation that has often been criticized. The reason given for leaving out inclusion of provisions concerning the service was that it would be much more difficult to make any changes to it then. One can accept this justification, but on the other hand some neutral provisions in the Constitution would certainly strengthen the position of the public prosecution service, and underline its role in a democratic society.
It has to be mentioned, that the public prosecution service also encompasses military units, but specific features of this branch of the service will not be dealt with in this study.
Before we start, one remark has to be made: the name of the public prosecution service is prokuratura, and the name of its member is prokurator. The prokurator – as will be shown later – is the main but not the only public prosecutor. Nevertheless, I will talk about the public prosecutor having in mind the procurator with a short reference to other public prosecutors where this is useful.
