As 'conversas informais' extraprocessuais como meio de prova em processo penal

In the present thesis, we examine the approach to the so-called “informal conversations”, especially between a suspect or defendant and criminal police authorities. Our goal is to understand if criminal police authorities are allowed to testify about the content of these conversations, revealing facts that the suspect or defendant may have shared with them, as well as about evidence that they may have acquired through these statements. Firstly, we briefly present the notion of “informal conversations” and the great variety of situations they may encompass: intra or extra-procedural; prior or subsequent to someone acquires the status of defendant. Secondly, we analyse some of the principles and rules that are involved in this controversial issue: principles concerning the procedural structure, organization and dynamic; principles concerning the production and assessment of evidence in the trial hearing; principles concerning the prosecution and the powers of criminal police authorities; the procedural status of the defendant; the rules concerning the reading of statements in the trial hearing; the rules concerning hearsay testimonies. Thirdly, we go through the great amount of case law on the so-called “informal conversations” and related matters, analysing the most relevant cases and the arguments that sustain them, as well as the legal literature. Our goal is to understand the evolution, throughout the last two decades, of the different opinions regarding the approach to the various situations in which “informal conversations” may occur and in which the admissibility of a testimony by criminal police authorities is questioned. Finally, we defend a different approach for testimonies by criminal police authorities prior and subsequent to someone acquiring the status of defendant. We see the moment when someone acquires the status of defendant as a border area in the admissibility of “informal conversations”, because from then on the statements have to be collected and assessed according to the law, so all the other conversations (or any other evidence) collected informally are irrelevant. As to the specific case of the testimony about the re-enactment of the crime, given the high degree of difficulty in separating the defendant’s contributions that may be considered essential and those that may be considered less useful, but still relevant, we support the qualification of the defendant’s contributions as inseparable from the re-enactment, allowing it to be replicated and assessed in the trial hearing with no restrictions.

A presunção de inocência nas fases preliminares do processo penal

This study analyses the principle of presumption of innocence in the preliminary stages of the Portuguese criminal process, its procedural aspect related with the principle of in dubio pro reo and its material aspect concerning the treatment of the defendant during the proceedings. The consequences and manifestations of the principle of presumption of innocence are analysed in the decisions of the closing stages of the preliminary criminal procedure and the application of the principle of in dubio pro reo is analysed in the judgement of sufficiency of evidence for the procedure to continue. It addresses the question of circumstantial evidence, its particular relevance in economic and financial crime, highly organized crime, the grounds for the indictment in general and when the sufficiency of evidence criteria is based on that evidence. It analyses the scope of the principle of presumption of innocence in the application of coercive measures, with reference to the arrest, first interrogation of the accused under detention and reasons for the subsequent dispatch about the measures. The asset assurance measures of preventive seizure and the preventive seizure to ensure confiscation are analysed and principle of presumption of innocence is considered non applicable to those measures.

Relatório de estágio no departamento central de investigação e acção penal

The means of obtaining evidence, the amount of evidence obtained, the number of defendants related to each criminal case and the gravity of the crimes for which the magistrates of the Department are holders of penal action, define its real importance to the Rule of Law. I have deeply studied the subject of the institution of hierarchical intervention required by the assistant and the application of an opening statement by the defendant, starting from a hypothetical case, provided when the query of an investigation with the subject of the crime of active corruption, where this institution was called as a reaction to the archiving dispatch delivered by the Public Ministry. I have study about the implementation of the institution of provisional suspension of the process, specifically in the scope of fiscal criminality, analyzing the effective satisfaction of the purposes of the sentences in two slopes: general prevention and special prevention. I went for my first time to a Central Court of Criminal Instruction, where I attended the measures of inquiry and instructive debate of a process that culminated with the prosecution and pronunciation of the defendants. In addition to this criminal experience, I have deepened and consolidated the academic knowledge with the study of various criminal cases from various fields in the scope of criminality investigated by the Department. I could therefore check the basis of procedural delays, regarding to our legal system, especially in this type of crime, raising issues that I analyzed and discussed, always in a critical and academic way. I had the opportunity to attend and witness a seminar in the Lisbon Directorate of Finance as well of entering the Centre for Judicial Studies to attend a conference on the International Anti-Corruption Day. Focus on the investigatory importance of the international judicial cooperation, through the various organs, with special interest to EUROJUST. I comprehended the organization and functioning of these communitarian organs and means of communication of procedural acts, in particular, the rogatory letters and european arrest warrants. This involvement is motivated by the moratorium factor of the investigations where rogatory letters are necessary for the acquisition of evidence or information relevant to the good continuation of the process. For this reason the judicial cooperation through the relevant communitarian organs, translates a streamlined response between the competent judicial authorities of the Member States, through the National Member that integrates EUROJUST. This report aims to highlight some of the difficulties and procedural issues that Public Prosecutors of DCIAP and criminal police bodies that assist them, face in combating violent and organized crime, of national and transnational nature, of particular complexity, according to the specifics of criminal types.

A intervenção da seguradora nas acções propostas contra o segurado

The problem to be discussed results from the relationship established between the insurer and insured by the conclusion of an insurance contract, namely an optional liability insurance contract, to cover the risks taken by the insured resulting from the occurrence of a claim, such as those arising from the emergence of the liability and consequent obligation to compensate damages caused to a third party. This thesis concerns thus the debate between those who consider that, in the optional insurance, the third party may require compliance with the provision to both the insured and the insurer (in the case of voluntary joinder, pursuant to Art. 27 CCP, which corresponds Art. 32 of the New Code of Civil Procedure, Law n. 41/2013 of 26 June, which entered into force on 1 September, hereinafter New Code) - insurance contract on behalf of a third party conception - in the same way that the insured defendant can bring the insurer to intervene as co-defendant in the main process, pursuant al. a) of art. 325 of the CCP (corresponding to art. 316 of the New Code - main intervention caused), and those who argue that the insurer may only intervene in the action as an ancillary party, to assist the defendant, lacking interest, therefore, in necessary or volunteer joinder, with the consequence that the insurer cannot be sued as a main party - only ancillary intervention is justifiable (cf. art. 330 CPC, which corresponds to art. 321 of the New Code).