Facts
The case concerns a police officer who testified in a criminal procedure without prior authorization from their superior authority. The defendant challenged the validity of this testimony, arguing that the police officer had not been authorized to testify under Article 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrimPC). The procedure began on April 19, 2012, when the defendant was accused of committing a traffic offense on the A1 highway. The police officer testified at the first-instance hearing without having obtained authorization from their superior authority.
The parties involved are the defendant, the police officer, and the public prosecution authority. The procedure was conducted before the court of first instance and then before the court of appeal. The defendant filed an appeal against the decision of the court of appeal, arguing that the police officer's testimony was inadmissible due to the lack of authorization.
Considerations
Article 170 of the CrimPC provides that officials and members of authorities may refuse to testify about secrets that have been entrusted to them in the exercise of their functions. However, they may be authorized to testify by their superior authority if the interest of seeking the truth outweighs the interest of confidentiality.
The issue at stake is whether the police officer was required to obtain authorization from their superior authority to testify in the criminal procedure. The court considered that the police officer was obliged to report the facts they had ascertained and that, consequently, they did not need authorization…