Search

This paper is dedicated to the issue of violence against women and domestic violence in the context of the plea agreement of the parties and the procedural position of the victim in these proceedings. Therefore, this paper first analyses the European legal standards that weave the positive legal basis for the limitation of alternative ways of solving cases in the domain of domestic violence. The two pillars of the Convention's supervisory mechanism are then considered, which ensure the effective implementation of the proclaimed standards, with special reference to the results of the evaluation of the legal systems of the member states of the Convention from the perspective of the victim's right to effective investigation and the prohibition of alternative dispute resolution processes in the context of entering into plea agreements in cases of violence against women and domestic violence. Finally, the current normative framework of the Misdemeanour Act on the procedure for entering into a plea agreement and sanction is critically analysed, shortcomings and inconsistencies of the current procedural solutions are pointed out, and proposals are made for the future aimed at reviving international legal standards in the Croatian Misdemeanour Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper contains an analysis of judgments based on agreement of the parties, a Croatian model of plea bargaining, drawing on the experiences of three groups of practitioners: judges, state attorneys, and defence counsels. Previously conducted comparative legal analysis, as well as analysis of the Croatian normative framework and jurisprudence, was not able to provide answers to a number of questions about the motivation of the parties to negotiate, on the negotiation procedure which is not recorded in the protocol, about the real and the ideal role of the court, and about the real position of the parties and the victim. Hence, these issues were researched through semi-structured interviews with 60 practitioners and then further discussed in four focus groups. Some of the findings uncovered systemic inconsistencies in everyday legal practice in a number of areas. For instance, judgment based on agreement of the parties is more readily used in cases of serious offences, while other consensual forms of proceedings tend to be used for less serious offences. Informal negotiations at all stages of the criminal procedure have proven to be very popular with practitioners and sometimes even encouraged by judges. Yet, the issue of judicial control of the plea agreement divided the respondents, even though the right to judicial review of criminal prosecution is a fundamental principle of Croatian criminal procedure, which covers not only the fundamental issues of legality and voluntariness of the concluded agreement, but also the purposefulness of the proposed sanction. The victim's position in the plea-bargaining procedure is considered to be adequate, at least as long as the victim is involved, and there is a tendency to consult the victim even in cases when his or her consent is not required by law. Finally, although it is generally considered that defence rights are well protected, there are problematic issues, namely tariffs or the 'take it or leave it' offer, as well as the wide discretion of the state attorney when deciding to enter into negotiations and reach agreement. The qualitative analysis of the findings, which is presented in this paper, should contribute to drafting specific proposals for improvements in the legislation and practice of the judgment based on agreement of the parties in Croatian law. Many of these findings may also be relevant for other legal systems, especially those of the continental European legal tradition, since they may face the same problems and questions related to plea bargaining as a global phenomenon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Croatian Annual of Criminal Sciences & Practice / Hrvatski Ljetopis za Kaznene Znanosti i Praksu is the property of Hrvatsko Udruzenje za Kaznene Znanosti i Praksu and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper considers judgments based on agreement of the parties in Croatian law, more precisely particular aspects of this consensual form which previous studies have assessed to be potentially problematic. These aspects include the objectives of reaching agreement, the gravity of criminal offences subject to agreement, the role of the court, and the legal position of the defence and that of the victim. These aspects are analysed primarily from a comparative-law perspective, since the Croatian version of plea bargaining, just like specific models adopted in some other European countries, was inspired by the same American model. Besides American law, the research includes Italian, French, Swiss, German and Austrian law. The goal of the comparative research is to find out whether the Croatian model contains some specific features which perhaps differ from positive comparative European legal solutions, but also result in theoretical and practical problems. The study will also include analysis of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia concerning primarily the issue of judicial control over the agreement of the parties, which has been most disputed in domestic literature and in judicial practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Another very decisive step was taken by the Law on Criminal Procedure of 2008 towards classic plea bargaining of the parties on guilt and sanctions in our criminal procedure whereby a legislator indicated clear dedication to the idea of accelerating the procedure i.e. to implement the principle of efficiency but to the detriment of up to now indisputable principles of the procedure. The paper deals mostly with a detailed comparative analysis of plea bargaining in the USA, Germany and Italy. By the US example the paper clearly shows reasons for success of this institute in its original environment and dangers in the plea bargaining system dominated by a strong plaintiff, whereas German and Italian examples of bargaining systems emphasize the analysis of court position, more or less involved in the particular bargaining procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]