Among the topics that Agata Hulak discusses in this article are: the modern methods of communication between convicts and their loved ones, the issue of so-called intimate visits, the issue of convicts’ contacts with the outside world during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the results of the operations of supervising institutions.

In their article, Przemysław Krawczyk and Bartosz Łukowiak discuss the issue of the habeas corpus procedure. On the basis of a comparative legal analysis, they present a model of the functioning of this institution in Poland and in selected countries whose legal code is based on common law. Krawczyk and Łukowiak discuss in detail, among other things, the scope and the subject matter of this mode and the catalogue of guarantees associated with it. Their research has made it possible to compare the most important similarities and differences in the functioning of the habeas corpus privilege in the Polish legal code and in common law. This, in turn, has allowed them to assess the accuracy of some of the solutions known to the Polish criminal procedural law. This article contains extensive references to the views expressed on this mode both in the Polish and the Anglo-Saxon doctrine of the procedural criminal law and to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the United States Supreme Court.

In their article, Erwin Ryter and Justyna Ryter make an attempt to answer the following questions: What may be the farthest limit of tolerance towards public authorities’ interference with a person’s right to privacy in the context of fight against crime as well as the performance of necessary and purposeful procedural actions? Can both the procedural objective and the fact of the violation of the right to privacy of the suspect justify direct or indirect interference with the privacy of persons from the suspect’s social environment, even if that interference is a side effect of actions taken against the offender? The authors of this article also raise the issue of privacy violations in relation to various forms of monitoring of persons who are of interest to the authorities conducting the proceedings. In particular, these proceedings may involve keeping various types of registers containing the data of offender, using classified eavesdropping on them, observing their whereabouts, and disclosing their personal data.

A few Hungarian cases of justice miscarriage demonstrate that the identity parade (line up) method in the criminal procedure could be a “dangerous act”, because the witnesses sometimes give false testimonies, make wrong choices, the authority sometimes fails the recognition process, and lastly the “result” could be a “justizmord”. Based on scientific research, the present study reveals the most frequent criminal procedural and criminalistic wrongdoings. It also focuses on preventing legal and criminal tactical possibilities and suggestions. It can be read mostly from the defence counsel’s point of view. The author declares the lawyers’ legal and factual tasks in this field, especially for preventing wrongful sentences. This is the duty of all legal representatives (detectives, prosecutors, judges) as well.

The article is devoted to terminological issues pertaining to one of the more controversial problems in the Polish criminal proceedings which awakens keen interest of the legal doctrine. The author presents some fundamental definitional findings relating to such terms as: “illegal evidence”, “the obtainment of illegal evidence”, “directly illegal evidence”, and “indirectly illegal evidence” based on various views expressed in this matter by the criminal procedure doctrine. While quoting the distinction into the directly illegal and indirectly illegal evidences, she postulates a more careful approach to defining the issues in question, which she substantiates by indicating Article 168 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Resultantly, on the basis of assumed definitions of the two categories of illegal evidences, the author particularizes which of the two may constitute a ground for statements of fact and which needs to be further considered.

The subject of the article is to discuss the issues related to the crime against security in communication, and above all, specified in Art. 177 of the Criminal Code for the offense of causing a road accident. Despite the fact that, in its basic elements, the features of this prohibited act do not raise any doubts, and the crime functioned in all penal codifications, it is still problematic to determine who can actually be the subject of it. Expression of this problem are the recent judgements, which ought to be subject to criticism. This is related to the possibility of responsibility for the so-called extended perpetration, which should be denial.

Przemysław Krawczyk discusses the impact of institutions related to the continuity of a crime on the substantive validity of judgments in criminal cases and the ne bis in idem prohibition that flows from it. The study presents the views of doctrine and judicature which treat the scope of the validity of substantive judgment in relation to conduct (acts) committed in the conditions of continuity. It should be noted at the outset that positions on this issue tend to be diametrically different. Moreover, Krawczyk points out how important it is to set temporal limits to the continuity of an offence. This issue is of considerable importance from the point of view of the substantive validity of a ruling issued in a criminal trial, because incorrect or insufficiently precise delimitation of these limits may result in a violation of some fundamental principles of criminal law, both substantive and procedural.