PORTUGAL Trends and Developments Contributed by: Bárbara Marinho e Pinto, Rogério Alves & Associados
sidering that the complexity and sheer volume of the case were incompatible with the time limits set by the court for the preparation of the defence. Debate over the procedural handling of what is, to date, Portugal’s most high-profile criminal trial has dominated the public agenda and prompted a pro - liferation of legislative proposals that risk taking the form of “emergency laws”, with the potential to further erode defence rights and guarantees. It is as if rights are increasingly perceived as obsta - cles rather than as instruments for achieving criminal justice. This broader sentiment is mirrored in the legislative changes projected for 2026 – in particular Govern - ment Bill No 54/XVII/1, which seeks to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) and the Regulation on Court Costs (RCP) and is currently at the forefront of the political and professional agenda. Government Bill No 54/XVII/1 aims to accelerate and rationalise criminal proceedings by strengthening judicial case management, tightening time limits and preclusions, narrowing appeals, formalising the struc - ture of indictments and defence pleadings, increasing court fees in criminal cases and introducing a new form of procedural punishment against so-called dila - tory acts. While some clarifications and the codifica - tion of existing good practice are welcome, the overall trend, as seen from a defence perspective, is towards a more restrictive procedural environment. Case Management, Time Limits and Preclusions (CPP) A new fine for dilatory acts (Article 521 A CPP) is appli - cable to parties and certain third parties – including lawyers acting in defence of their clients within crimi - nal proceedings. This is perhaps the most contro - versial measure under consideration, as it is felt that it could lead to defence lawyers themselves feeling constrained in the performance of their legal duties for fear of being subject to financial or disciplinary sanctions. A lawyer who is constrained by fear will inevitably be less free, which leaves citizens less pro - tected against the punitive power of the state. The Portuguese Bar Association ( Ordem dos Advogados )
has expressed its deep concern over the proposed introduction of Article 521‑A of the CPP, considering that the provision flagrantly breaches essential consti - tutional principles, namely the right of defence (Article 32), the technical independence of the lawyer (Article 208), the principle of proportionality (Article 18) and the disciplinary autonomy of the Bar Association. A new provision (Article 85 A CPP) would impose on the trial judge a duty of procedural “management and adequacy” to ensure the swift progress of the case, empowering the judge to adopt “streamlining mecha - nisms”, with decisions taken under this power being unappealable. In especially complex cases (Article 107 CPP), the Bill replaces the current, flexible possibility of increasing deadlines “by 30 days or more” with a more rigid doubling mechanism, largely confined to appeals and responses. This is criticised as undermining access to justice and defence rights; maintaining judicial dis - cretion over longer extensions for all procedural acts is recommended by the Portuguese Bar Association. The Bill tightens preclusion rules on nullities (Article 120 CPP) by aligning the deadline to raise inquiry stage nullities with the deadline for requesting the opening of the intermediate phase, after which they are precluded. This is also seen as an unjustified com - pression of the guarantees of defence. Indictments, Defence Pleadings and Evidential Regime (CPP) Evidential decisions will nominally be assessed under existing necessity and suitability criteria (Articles 312 and 340 CPP), but appeals against such decisions are to be restricted to cases where the ground is the inad - missibility of evidence obtained by prohibited meth - ods or in breach of statutory conditions. This narrow - ing of appellate review is seen as a serious restriction of access to justice and defence rights and is likely to generate satellite litigation over what constitutes a “prohibited method”. The confession regime is extended to more seri - ous offences (Article 344 (3)(c) CPP), increasing the weight of negotiated outcomes. This heightens the risk of strategic or coerced self-incrimination in seri -
151 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook