Principles of Criminal Procedure: What Rules Must the Police, the Prosecutor, and the Court Follow?

Quick Overview: What Are the Basic Principles of Criminal Proceedings?

• The presumption of innocence means that until a person is finally convicted, they must be presumed innocent.
• In dubio pro reo means that any reasonable doubt regarding the facts of the case that cannot be dispelled must be interpreted in favor of the accused.
• The principle of legality requires the public prosecutor to prosecute crimes of which he or she becomes aware, unless the law provides for an exception.
• The principle of official initiative means that law enforcement authorities generally act on their own initiative.
• Other fundamental principles include the right to a defense, the prohibition against compelling a person to incriminate themselves, the public nature and oral proceedings of court hearings, and the requirement to establish the facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

If criminal proceedings have been initiated against you and you are unsure whether the police, the prosecutor, or the court are respecting your procedural rights, please contact us. An attorney will assess your specific case and explain what rights you can exercise at the current stage of the proceedings.

Criminal proceedings aren’t exactly a common occurrence in most of our lives, so it’s only natural that we don’t pay much attention to them and don’t know much about them. We read about how a corruption scandal involving a prominent politician is unfolding and what happened to an elderly “terrorist,” but that’s usually where our interest ends. But what if a large sum of money went missing from your company and you were (even if wrongfully) accused of embezzlement? And what if your 14-year-old child got mixed up with a group engaged in some illegal activity? Can they even be prosecuted? We’ve tried to summarize the basic principles of criminal proceedings in our article and have supplemented them with illustrative examples from both substantive and procedural criminal law.

Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure

The fundamental principles of criminal law and the fundamental principles of criminal procedure constitute the rules upon which both criminal liability itself and the conduct of authorities during criminal proceedings are based. Some of these principles stem from the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Examples from substantive criminal law include the definitions of criminal offenses—such as murder or theft—and the penalties for committing them.

An example from criminal procedure law is the institution of pretrial detention, which restricts the personal freedom of the accused if there is a risk of flight or witness tampering. Many such principles are described in criminal law theory; we will mention at least the most significant ones, which include:

• The principle of legality, according to which you may only be punished for acts described in the law. For example, in Anglo-Saxon law, judges are given greater discretion in this regard, so you’re unlikely to find inspiration in American TV shows.
• Linked to this principle is the so-called prohibition on retroactivity, which means that a certain act is a criminal offense provided that it is punishable by law at the time it is committed and remains so until the conviction becomes final. For example, under current law, the crime of sexual abuse is defined as sexual intercourse with a child under the age of fifteen. If, for example, a well-known singer were to have a relationship with a 15-year-old girlfriend and lawmakers were to raise the age of the child for that offense to 16, the celebrity would have to cease intimate relations until his partner turns 16, but he would not be punished retroactively. Conversely, if the individual in question had begun the relationship when the girl was fourteen, and criminal proceedings were initiated against him, but at the same time lawmakers lowered the age of consent for that offense to fourteen, he would again avoid punishment.
• The principle of humanism —permeates criminal law on multiple levels. Above all, it is enshrined that no one may be tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Furthermore, the enforcement of punishment must not degrade human dignity. In accordance with this principle, the death penalty has also been abolished.
• The principle of individual responsibility of natural persons —according to this principle, criminal responsibility always lies with a specific individual. We cannot, therefore, speak of collective guilt. However, this does not preclude the criminal liability of legal entities.
• The principle of liability based on culpability —this means that a perpetrator may be punished only if they caused a specific consequence. For example, if several accomplices went together to rob an apartment and one of them murdered the owner, it is not possible to punish all of them based solely on the overall consequence (the robbed apartment and the murder); rather , it is necessary to determine individually what each person committed.
• The principle of substantive truth applies not only in criminal proceedings but also in uncontested civil proceedings. In the current Criminal Procedure Code, this principle is reflected primarily in the requirement that law enforcement authorities establish the facts of the case beyond a reasonable doubt, to the extent necessary for their decision. This means that law enforcement authorities must strive to accurately establish the facts, regardless of the parties’ actions. The accused or their defense counsel need not take any active steps in this regard (This contrasts with the principle of formal truth, applied in civil litigation, where, conversely, emphasis is placed on the parties’ active participation and the evidence they present, and it is up to the parties to convince the court of “their truth”).

Other Important Principles of Criminal Procedure

• The principle of ne bis in idem means that no one may be prosecuted again for the same offense if a final judgment has already been rendered on it. However, the law allows for the use of extraordinary legal remedies, such as a retrial. An exception applies if entirely new, material facts come to light in the case, leading to a retrial. This principle is not, however, contradicted, for example, by a situation where a single act by the offender simultaneously constitutes a criminal offense and a misdemeanor under a different law. In such a case, these are two separate acts that may be punished twice.
• The principle of the presumption of innocence, which states that the accused must be regarded as innocent until a conviction becomes final. In practice, however, this principle sometimes falls short, as people tend to rely on the proverb “there’s no smoke without fire.” Of course, this is certainly not one of the principles of criminal procedure. The presumption of innocence also means that the accused does not have to prove their innocence —proving guilt is the responsibility of the criminal justice authorities.
• The principle of *in dubio pro reo*, or “when in doubt, in favor of the accused,” builds upon the presumption of innocence. If, even after the presentation of evidence, reasonable doubts remain regarding the facts of the case and cannot be dispelled by further evidence, the authorities must rule in favor of the accused. However, this does not mean that every single ambiguity automatically leads to an acquittal—the doubts must be reasonable, irremovable, and significant to the determination of guilt.
• The principle of official initiative means that criminal justice authorities act strictly out of official duty—that is, on their own initiative and without anyone having to propose their action.
• The principle of legality means that the public prosecutor is obligated to prosecute all criminal offenses of which he or she becomes aware, unless a legal provision provides for an exception.
• The principle of indictment stipulates that the court may rule on the facts set forth in the indictment. However, the court is not bound by the legal assessment of the facts set forth by the public prosecutor in the indictment; thus, provided that the statutory conditions are met, the court may apply a different legal classification. The defendant must retain the right to effectively defend himself against such an assessment.
• The principle against self-incrimination provides that the accused may not be compelled in any way to provide evidence incriminating himself.
• The principles of public and oral proceedings mean that the main trial is, as a rule, public, and the court renders its decision based on evidence presented orally before it. The court may exclude the public in cases specified by law, for example, when it is necessary to protect classified information, public morals, public safety, or other important interests of witnesses. The public and oral nature of criminal proceedings strengthen the accountability of judicial decision-making and the defendant’s right to participate effectively in the proceedings.

Together, these principles form the basis of the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings. In particular, the accused must have the opportunity to defend themselves, comment on the evidence, seek the assistance of a defense attorney, and be presumed innocent until their guilt is finally determined by a court.

In practice, it is a common misconception that if the police have charged a person, that person must now prove their own innocence. The opposite is true— guilt must be proven by the criminal justice authorities. Therefore, a defense often consists not only of presenting “one’s own evidence,” but also of pointing out contradictions and doubts in the prosecution’s evidence.

Do you have doubts as to whether the principles of the presumption of innocence, the right to a defense, or the rules of evidence were upheld during your criminal proceedings? Contact us. An attorney can review the authorities’ actions and propose further defense strategies tailored to the specific stage of the proceedings.

In addition to procedural principles, it is also important for the assessment of a specific case to determine whether the conditions for criminal liability of the individual in question can be met at all.

Who can be prosecuted?

The Criminal Code sets forth several conditions that must be met simultaneously for criminal prosecution to occur.

A perpetrator may be: a natural person who has reached the age of fifteen and is of sound mind.

A person would be deemed not of sound mind if, due to a mental disorder, they did not understand the unlawfulness of their conduct or were unable to control it. If this capacity is merely diminished, we speak of diminished mental capacity.

Persons under the age of 15 are not criminally liable. If a child under the age of 15 commits a misdemeanor or a crime, the competent authority would, of course, investigate the matter; however, the case would subsequently be handled by a juvenile court, which may order certain measures such as placement in an educational program or protective treatment.

For juveniles—that is, those between the ages of 15 and 18—intellectual and moral maturity is further assessed. The point is that if a juvenile was unable to recognize the unlawfulness of their actions or to control their behavior, then they are not criminally liable for such an offense.

The law also addresses the potential criminal liability of legal entities. A legal entity, of course, cannot itself commit an unlawful act, but it may be held liable for certain types of crimes if they are attributable to it.This means that the offense was committed by a member of the statutory body or company management, or possibly by an employee while performing work duties. Another condition is that the conduct must occur within the scope of the legal entity’s activities or in its interest.

Of course, by its very nature,a legal entity cannot be the perpetrator of a crime such as drunkenness or bigamy, but it can be held liable, for example, for animal cruelty or causing harm to a creditor.

Error in Criminal Law

Error in criminal law can have a fundamental impact on the offender’s liability and the assessment of their culpability. We discuss error in criminal law in two contexts. First, there is the concept ofa “judicial error,”which occurs when a court makes a mistake by incorrectly assessing the case at hand—for example, by misinterpreting the evidence and convicting an innocent person. Such errors are relatively rare, but they cannot be entirely ruled out.

Another situation is the so-called factual or legal error, which is described in criminal law.
A legal error occurs, for example, when ignorance of legal norms causes the perpetrator to commit a crime without realizing it. This may be particularly relevant, for example, in the case of juveniles, who would still be criminally liable for such an act, but the court might refrain from punishing them.

In rather exceptional cases, the opposite situation may occur, where someone believed they were committing a crime, but the law does not penalize the conduct in question (for example, believing that littering on the street is a crime). Such conduct would then be sanctioned at most by passersby, but not by a court.

A factual mistake refers to a situation where the perpetrator is unaware of a circumstance that would cause the conduct in question to be characterized as a crime. Here, too, there is a reverse scenario, in which the perpetrator may believe they are committing a crime, even though this is not actually the case due to certain factual circumstances.

This second scenario was frequently discussed in criminal cases related to the film *V síti* (*In the Net*). The individuals involved had many reasons to believe they were communicating with 12-year-old children in a highly inappropriate manner, even though the individuals were, in fact, adult actresses. In such cases, the law allows for punishment if the perpetrator believes they are committing a more serious intentional crime, even though this is not actually the case. They may then be punished for attempting to commit that more serious crime.

Mistake of fact plays an important role in criminal law, for example, in rape cases, where the issue is whether the perpetrator was aware of the victim’s lack of consent. Czech case law distinguishes between excusable and inexcusable error in criminal law, and only the former can lead to a reduction in the sentence.

What if the law does not regulate a particular matter in detail?

If, during criminal proceedings, a particular legal provision does not precisely address a certain matter (related to the proceedings or the offense itself), the law allows for what is known as analogy. This refers to the application of another legal provision to a case to which that provision does not directly apply, but which is most closely related to it.

The use of analogy is rather exceptional in criminal law and must never be used to the detriment of the offender. This means, for example, that something not directly covered by the criminal code cannot be “analogously” characterized as a criminal offense.

Summary

Criminal proceedings are governed by principles that determine the procedures followed by the police, the public prosecutor, and the court, while also protecting the rights of the accused, the victim, and other individuals. Among the most important are the presumption of innocence and the principleof in dubio pro reo, which stems from it; according to this principle, reasonable doubts that cannot be dispelled are resolved in favor of the accused. The principle of legality requires the public prosecutor to prosecute crimes of which he or she becomes aware, while the principle of official initiative means that authorities act ex officio. An important part of a fair trial is also the right to a defense, the prohibition against compelling self-incrimination, the principle of indictment, and the public and oral nature of the main trial. In addition to these procedural rules, criminal law also establishes the conditions for the criminal liability of both natural and legal persons, as well as rules for assessing errors of law or fact.