İtham-Tahkik (Adversarial-Inquisitorial) Dikotomosinin İspat Hususunda Analitik Değeri: Türkiye ve İngiltere Örnekleri

Abstract

Müşterek hukuk sistemleri Kıta Avrupası hukuk sistemlerinden soruşturmanın ve yargılamanın nasıl ve kim tarafından yürütülmesi konusunda ve delillere ilişkin kurallar bakımından temel bir şekilde farklılık gösterir. Müşterek hukuk sistemlerinde itham usulü (adversarial) ceza yargısının  esasını oluştururken Kıta Avrupası’nda tahkik (inquisitorial) sistemi benimsenmiştir. Ancak bu iki hukuk geleneğinin ispat ve delil hukuklarındaki yakınlaşma bugün için ‘adversarial-inquisitorial’ kavramsallaştırmasının ceza yargılaması modellerini açıklamak için kullanılamayacağını gösteriyor. Mezkur iki kavram yalnızca hukuk sistemlerinin geleneksel olarak farklılık gösteren özelliklerini izah edebilir. En iyi ihtimalle, muhkem hukuk geleneklerinin yargılamanın süjeleri üzerindeki etkisini anlamaya yardımcı olabilir. Bu makalenin amacı iki farklı hukuk sisteminde var olan o ülkeye münhasır unsurlara bakarak ‘adversarial-inquisitorial’ dikotomisini kavramak için bir temel oluşturmak ve bu doğrultuda İngiliz ve Türk ceza yargılamalarının delile ilişkin kurallarını incelemektir.

Keywords

• İtham yargı usulü,tahkik sistemi,delil hukuku

The Analytical Value of the Adversarial-Inquisitorial Dichotomy in Approaches to Proof: The Examples of England and Turkey

Abstract

Common law systems differ substantially from civil law jurisdictions as to how and by whom the investigation and trial are to be conducted, and how rules of evidence are to be constructed. Whilst common law systems are considered to follow an adversarial trial process model, civil law traditions have generally been associated with an inquisitorial procedure. Yet, convergence between the criminal justice systems of the common law and those of the civil law in relation to proof and evidence suggest that the labels “adversarial” and “inquisitorial” cannot be used today to show the general character and structure of criminal trial models. Rather, they can only be used to help us begin to understand the different features that traditionally exist in different systems, or at best they can be used today to grasp the effects of the tradition on the mentality of parties during the trial. The aim of this article is first to set a basis for understanding the adversarial/inquisitorial dichotomy by looking at distinctive elements of each legal system, and then, so as to evaluate whether this conceptual dichotomy is useful, it aims to elaborate further the purposes of English and Turkish criminal trials and examine the evidentiary rules of the two jurisdictions. 

Keywords

• Adversarial trial process,inquisitorial procedure,rules of evidence

References

1. Ashworth A, Redmayne M, The Criminal Process: An Evaluative Study (OUP 2010).
2. Bıçak V, ‘A Comparative Study of The Problem of The Admissibility of Improperly Obtained Evidence’ (PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham 1995).
3. Case of Garcia Alva V. Germany [2001] Lietzow v. Germany, Application no. 23541/94 (Lietzow v. Germany)
4. Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu 2004.
5. Constitution of The Republic of Turkey 1982.
6. Damaska M, ‘Evidentiary “Barriers” to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Study’ in U. Pa. L. Rev. (1973) 121 506.
7. Damaska M, ‘Structures of Authority and Comparative Criminal Procedure’ 84 Yale Law Journal (1974-75) 480
8. Damaska M, Evidence Law Adrift (Yale University Press 1997).

9. Damaska M, The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process (Yale University Press 1986).
10. Dennis I, The Law of Evidence (6th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2017).
11. Doak J, McGourlay C, Evidence in Context (4th edn, Oxon: Routledge 2015).
12. Dündar M, ‘İngiliz Ve Türk Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuklarinda Hukuka Aykiri Deliller’ (PhD Thesis, İstanbul Üniversitesi 2014).
13. Gödekli M, ‘Türk Ceza Muhakemesinde Maddi Gerçeğe Ulaşmanin Ön Koşulu Olarak Hukuka Aykiri Delillerin Değerlendirilmesi Yasaği’ 65(4) AUHFD (2016) 1815.
14. Goldstein A, ‘Reflections on Two Models: Inquisitorial Themes in American Criminal Procedure’ 26(5) Stan. L. Rev. (1973-74) 1009.
15. Jackson J, ‘Taking Comparative Evidence Seriously’ in P. Roberts and M. Redmayne (Eds.) Innovations in Evidence and Proof: Integrating Theory, Research and Teaching (Hart 2007).
16. Jackson J, ‘The Effect of Human Rights on Criminal Evidentiary Processes: Towards Convergence, Divergence or Realignment?’ 68 (5) Modern Law Review (2005) 737.
17. Jackson J, Doran S, ‘Two Models of Proof’ in Judge without Jury: Diplock Trials in the Adversary System (Clarendon 1995).
18. Keane A, McKeown P, The Modern Law of Evidence (OUP 2014).
19. King M, ‘Security, Scale, Form and Function: The Search for Truth and the Exclusion of Evidence in Adversarial and Inquisitorial Justice Systems’ 12 Int’l Legal Persp. (2001-2) 185.
20. Landsman S, The Adversary System, a Description and Defence (Washington: The American Enterprise Institute, 1984).
21. Langer M, ‘Models of the Criminal Process’ in Markus D Dubber, Tatjana Hörnle(Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law (OUP 2014).
22. Mireille Delmas-Marty M, Spencer J R (Eds.) European Criminal Procedures (CUP 2002).
23. Monaghan N, Law of Evidence (CUP 2015).
24. Okuyucu-Ergün G, ‘Soruşturmanin Gizliliği’ 59(2) AUHFD (2010) 243.
25. Özbek V O, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (Seçkin Yayınları, Ankara 2006).
26. Öztunç O, ‘Ceza Muhakemesinde Hukuka Aykiri Deliller’ (PhD Thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi 2010).
27. Öztürk B, Yeni Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Delil Yasakları (AÜSBF İnsan Hakları Merkezi Yayınları, Ankara 1995).
28. P. Roberts, ‘Faces of justice adrift? Damaska’s Comparative Method and the Future of Common Law Evidence’ in: J. JACKSON, M. Langer, P. Tillers (Eds.) Crime, Procedure and Evidence in a Comparative and International Context: Essays in Honour of Professor Mirjan Damaska (Hart 2008).
29. Patrick Cowling, ‘Hundreds of cases dropped over evidence disclosure failings’ (2018) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42795058 accessed 18 April 2018.
30. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
31. R v H [2004] UKHL 3.
32. Rowe and Davis v United Kingdom (2000) 30 E.H.R.R.
33. Ryan A, Towards a System of European Criminal Justice the Problem of Admissibility of Evidence (Oxon; Routledge, 2014).
34. Sevuk H Y, ‘Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Bilirkisilik’ LXIV IUHFM C. (2006) 49.
35. Sklansky D, ‘Anti-Inquisitorialism’ (2009) 112(6) Harv. L. Rev. (2009) 1634.
36. Soyaslan D, ‘Hukuka Aykırı Deliller’ 7(3-4) AUEHFD (2003) 1.
37. Spencer J R, ‘Adversarial vs inquisitorial systems: is there still such a difference?’ 20(5) the International Journal of Human Rights (2016) 601.
38. The Criminal Procedure Rules, The Criminal Practice Directions October 2015 edition.
39. Treasury Minutes on the Fifteenth, Twentieth to Twenty-second and Twenty-fourth Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts 2004-2005, CM6667.
40. Ünver Y, Hakeri H, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (Ankara: Adalet Yayınları 2012).
41. Vogler R, A World View of Criminal Justice (Aldershot: Ashgate 2005).
42. Yargitay Case, E. 2014/195, K. 2015/116, 23.12.2015.
43. Weaver M, Grierson J, ‘Police chief admits ‘cultural problem’ with evidence disclosure’ (2018, the Guardian) https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/24/more-than-900-criminal-cases-collapse-undisclosed-evidence-cps-police accessed 18 April 2018.