Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

No. 7 (2025)

Artykuły

Specialised institution within the meaning of Article 193(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

  • Roksana Turek
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54383/0031-0344.2025.07.7  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2025-07-25

Abstract

This article addresses an important practical issue. Many private entities have appeared on the free market offering an extremely wide range of expert witness opinions. Most of these entities with suggestive names, e.g. "Biuro Ekspertyz", are treated by the procedural authorities as specialist institutions within the meaning of Article 193(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Practice shows that expert witness opinions prepared by such entities constitute an increasing percentage of all expert witness opinions prepared for the purposes of criminal (but also civil) proceedings, while their popularity results from short delivery times and competitive prices.

The Code of Criminal Procedure does not specify what is meant by the term used in Article 193(2) of the Code, that is, the concept of "specialist institution", leaving the interpretation to case law and legal scholarship. Unfortunately, the authors of commentaries, textbooks and studies on expert witnesses have not paid any attention to this issue. The case law in this area is also scant.
In this article, I indicate which institutions should be considered "specialist institutions" within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure and what requirements should be imposed on them. I also indicate selected institutions that advertise themselves on the Internet as specialist ones.

References

  1. Grzybowski Tomasz, Widacki Jan, Dowód z badań genetyczno-sądowych (badania DNA) w procesie karnym – problem kontroli jakości badań, „Palestra” 2019/4, s. 52–63 [Google Scholar]
  2. Kucharzyk Bartłomiej, Swobodna ocena dowodów. Analiza interdyscyplinarna, Kraków 2021 [Google Scholar]
  3. Widacki Jan, Glosa do wyroku Sądu Apelacyjnego w Katowicach z 7 czerwca 2017 r., II AKa 167/17, „Palestra” 2017/10, s. 73–77 [Google Scholar]
  4. Widacki Jan, Obrońca wobec opinii biegłego w procesie karnym, „Studia Prawnicze. Rozprawy i Materiały” 2015, s. 5–20 [Google Scholar]
  5. Widacki Jan, Instytucja naukowa lub specjalistyczna w rozumieniu art. 193 § 2 k.p.k., „Państwo i Prawo” 2013/9 (810), s. 45–53 [Google Scholar]
  6. Witkowska Krystyna, Biegły w postępowaniu karnym, „Prawo i Prokuratura” 2013/1, s. 5–13 [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.