Court dismisses defense counsel removal under Art. 79(4) kpk when appointment was under Art. 78(1) kpk, violating Art. 6 kpk.
Poland (PL)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe court dismissed the prosecution's request to remove the defense counsel, ruling that the removal procedure violated the statutory basis for the appointment. The defense was appointed under Article 78(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, yet the prosecution attempted to remove them using Article 79(4), which applies to different circumstances. The court held that this procedural mismatch constituted a serious violation of the right to defense under Article 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 78 ust. 1 k.p.k.; Art. 79 ust. 4 k.p.k.; Art. 6 k.p.k.: The removal of defense counsel pursuant to Article 79(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code is invalid when the counsel was originally appointed under Article 78(1), as this constitutes a serious procedural violation infringing upon the right to defense.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedFull text
Cofnięcie przez SR Lublin-Wschód w Lublinie z/ś w Świdniku ustanowienia obrońcy z urzędu w oparciu o przepis art. 79 par. 4 kpk, podczas gdy podstawą wyznaczenia tegoż obrońcy był art. 78 par. 1 kpk stanowi rażące naruszenie przepisów postępowania, w tym art. 6 kpk