Practical Application of the Reconstruction

Abstract

Aim: The study aims to show the potential of the proof experiment and its limitations and implementation flaws. It also aims to examine why its use is rare.

Methodology: In the study framework, the author consulted prosecutors, investigators, investigators, judges and defence lawyers, conducted a file search at the Metropolitan Court of Justice and reviewed publications on the legal instrument.

Findings: It is typically used during the investigation and in the first instance trial, but there are also examples of it being held in the second instance trial. It is used when it is necessary to clarify whether an event or phenomenon could have happened as the authorities assume based on the available data or to refute what the accused or witnesses have said. Practice shows that it is rarely used, as only a tiny proportion of cases require an attempt to prove. A characteristic of an evidentiary hearing is that it may require considerable preparation and sometimes many participants, so its organisation is only sometimes straightforward and often time-consuming. However, the result can help the prosecution if it is carried out correctly and no mistakes are made. The advantage of an evidentiary experiment is that it can be repeated, even at another stage of the proceedings, so that any execution error can be corrected. Contrary to popular perception, an attempt to take evidence does not necessarily slow criminal proceedings. As the cases presented in this study show, in many cases, an attempt at taking evidence speeds up criminal proceedings by providing answers to relevant questions.

Value: The study could change law enforcement practice to more frequently use legal instruments to prove and reduce the potential for enforcement errors. Monitoring changes could be the subject of further publications.