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 intervenção dos orgãos de polícia criminal em sede de julgamento

Currently, Portugal assumes itself as a democratic rule of substantive law State, sustained by a legal system seeking the right balance between the guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms constitutional foreseen in Portugal’s Fundamental Law and criminal persecution. The architecture of the penal code lies with, roughly speaking, a accusatory basic structure, “deliberately attached to one of the most remarkable achievements of the civilizational democratic progress, and by obedience to the constitutional commandment”, in balance with the official investigation principle, valid both for the purpose of prosecution and trial. Regarding the principle of non self-incrimination - nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare, briefly defined as the defendant’s right of not being obliged to contribute to the self-incrimination, it should be stressed that there isn’t an explicit consecration in the Portuguese Constitution, being commonly accepted in an implicit constitutional prediction and deriving from other constitutional rights and principles, first and foremost, the meaning and scope of the concept of democratic rule of Law State, embedded in the Fundamental Law, and in the guidelines of the constitutional principles of human person dignity, freedom of action and the presumption of innocence. In any case, about the (in) applicability of the principle of the prohibition of self-incrimination to the Criminal Police Bodies in the trial hearing in Court, and sharing an idea of Guedes Valente, the truth is that the exercise of criminal action must tread a transparent path and non-compliant with methods to obtain evidence that violate the law, the public order or in violation of democratic principles and loyalty (Guedes Valente, 2013, p. 484). Within the framework of the penal process relating to the trial, which is assumed as the true phase of the process, the witness represents a relevant figure for the administration of criminal justice, for the testimonial proof is, in the idea of Othmar Jauernig, the worst proof of evidence, but also being the most frequent (Jauernig, 1998, p. 289). As coadjutant of the Public Prosecutor and, in specific cases, the investigating judge, the Criminal Police Bodies are invested with high responsibility, being "the arms and eyes of Judicial Authorities in pursuing the criminal investigation..." which has as ultimate goal the fulfillment of the Law pursuing the defense of society" (Guedes Valente, 2013, p. 485). It is in this context and as a witness that, throughout operational career, the Criminal Police Bodies are required to be at the trial hearing and clarify the Court with its view about the facts relating to occurrences of criminal context, thus contributing very significantly and, in some cases, decisively for the proper administration of the portuguese criminal justice. With regards to the intervention of Criminal Police Bodies in the trial hearing in Court, it’s important that they pay attention to a set of standards concerning the preparation of the testimony, the very provision of the testimony and, also, to its conclusion. Be emphasized that these guidelines may become crucial for the quality of the police testimony at the trial hearing, thus leading to an improvement of the enforcement of justice system. In this vein, while preparing the testimony, the Criminal Police Bodies must present itself in court with proper clothing, to read before and carefully the case files, to debate the facts being judged with other Criminal Police Bodies and prepare potential questions. Later, while giving his testimony during the trial, the Criminal Police Bodies must, summing up, to take the oath in a convincing manner, to feel comfortable, to start well by convincingly answering the first question, keep an attitude of serenity, to adopt an attitude of collaboration, to avoid the reading of documents, to demonstrate deference and seriousness before the judicial operators, to use simple and objective language, to adopt a fluent speech, to use nonverbal language correctly, to avoid spontaneity responding only to what is asked, to report only the truth, to avoid hesitations and contradictions, to be impartial and to maintain eye contact with the judge. Finally, at the conclusion of the testimony, the Criminal Police Bodies should rise in a smooth manner, avoiding to show relief, resentment or satisfaction, leaving a credible and professional image and, without much formality, requesting the judge permission to leave the courtroom. As final note, it’s important to stress that "The intervention of the Police Criminal Bodies in the trial hearing in Court” encloses itself on a theme of crucial importance not only for members of the Police and Security Forces, who must welcome this subject with the utmost seriousness and professionalism, but also for the proper administration of the criminal justice system in Portugal.

Ações encobertas

The global and increasingly technological society requires the States to adopt security measures that can maintain the balance between the freedom, on the one hand, and the security and the respect for fundamental rights of a democratic state, on the other. A State can only achieve this aim if it has an effective judicial system and in particular a criminal procedure adequate to the new criminogenic realities. In this context, the national legislator has adopted, following other international legal systems, special means of obtaining proof more stringent of rights. Within those special means are included the covert actions, that, being a means to use sparingly, is a key element to fight against violent and highly organized crime. Therefore, the undercover agent, voluntary by nature, develops a set of activities that enables the investigation to use other means of taking evidence and/or probationary diligences itself, with the purpose of providing sufficient proof to the case file. In this milieu, given the high risks involved during the investigation, as well as after its completion, the undercover agent can act upon fictitious identity. This measure can be maintained during the evidentiary phase of the trial. Similarly, given the latent threat that the undercover agent suffers by its inclusion in criminal organizations, as well as the need for his inclusion in future covert actions it is crucial that his participation as a witness in the trial is properly shielded. Thus, when the undercover agent provides, exceptionally, statements in the trial, he shall do so always through videoconference with voice and image distortion. This measure can guarantee the anonymity of the undercover agent and concomitantly, that the adversarial principle and the right of the accused to a fair trial is not prejudiced since, in those circumstances, the diligence will be supervised in its entirety (in the audience and with the undercover agent) by a judge.