Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:29:53Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Ozana Baptista Gusmao.pdf: 371707 bytes, checksum: d5e17903de695177bc34491d1f808d43 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009-10-14 / The following study aims to analyse the impacts that the introduction of the subject of general repercussion on the extraordinary appeal will bring to the Brazilian juridical system, specially over the crisis that is inflicted on the Supreme Federal Court. It looks as well to analyse the pertinence or not of adopting a filter to the ends it is purposed to. The study is justified by the profound alterations that the subject adoption will bring to all the system, even causing a paradigm shift on the extraordinary appeal. For a better understanding of those alterations, it will first examine the hystorical aspects, placing the creation of the extraordinary appeal and the Supreme Federal Court on the Brazilian juridical system. Similar subjects, adopted in other countries, will also be analyzed, as well as the courses of the Brazilian appeal filter version. It will raise the cultural question, of operators and those under jurisdiction, facing the juridical situations, on the Brazilian scenario. At last, it will collate the subject creation and legitimity to the constitutional guarantee of process reasonable length and access to Justice / O presente estudo tem por objetivo analisar os impactos que a introdução do instituto da repercussão geral no recurso extraordinário trará ao sistema jurídico brasileiro, especialmente sobre a crise que assola o Supremo Tribunal Federal, bem como analisar a pertinência ou não da adoção do filtro para o fim que se propõe. Justifica-se o estudo pela profunda alteração que a adoção do instituto trará sobre todo o sistema, provocando inclusive mudança de paradigma do recurso extraordinário. Para melhor compreensão dessas alterações, primeiramente examinar-se-á os aspectos históricos, situando a criação do recurso extraordinário e o Supremo Tribunal Federal, no sistema jurídico brasileiro. Serão também analisados institutos similares, adotados em outros países, bem como os meandros da versão brasileira do filtro recursal. Colocar-se-á a questão cultural dos operadores e jurisdicionados frente às situações jurídicas na cena brasileira. Por fim, cotejar-seá a criação e legitimidade do instituto frente à garantia constitucional da duração razoável do processo e o acesso à Justiça

Text in Afrikaans / Artikel 35(5) van die Grondwet 108 van 1996 handel oor die uitsluiting van ongrondwetlike getuienis en bepaal dat sodanige getuienis uitgesluit moet word indien toelating daarvan sal lei tot 'n onbillike verhoor of tot nadeel sal strek vir die regspleging. Uit die bewoording van die artikel blyk dit dat die howe geen diskresie het ten opsigte van die toelaatbaarheidsvraag nie en 'n streng uitsluitingbenadering moet volg. Die doel van hierdie verha• ndeling is om ondersoek in te stel na die mate van diskresie .en die wyse ·waarop diskresie toepas word in hierdie besluitnemingsproses. Twee benaderings is deur die howe gevolg, naamlik 'n benadering waar 'n wye diskresie uitgeoefen word en 'n benadering waar 'n beperkte diskresie uitgeoefen word, dus 'n gekwalifiseerde uitsluitingsbenadering. Die skrywer doen aan die hand dat beide gronde vir uitsluiting van belang is en dat die howe verkeie faktore moet oorweeg ten einde 'n beslissing te vel oor die insluiting of uitsluiting van ongrondwetlike getuienis. 'n Balans moet dus gehandhaaf word tussen die belang van die beskuldigde op 'n billike verhoor en die belang van die gemeenskap daarin dat regspleging nie benadeel moet word nie en dat reg en geregtigheid moet geskied / Section 35(3) of the Constitution Act 108 of 1996 deals with the exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence and stipulates that such evidence must be excluded if the admission would render the trial unfair or be detrimental to the administration of justice. From the wording of the section it seems that the courts have no jurisdiction in regard to the admissibility question and that a strict exclusionary approach must be followed. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the amount of discretion that the Courts have, and the manner in which this discretion is applied in the process of decision making. Two approaches were followed by the courts namely a wide discretionary approach and an approach where a strict discretion was applied. It is submitted that botR grounds for exclusion are of importance and that the courts must consider a variety of factors in deciding the question on the inclusion or exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence. A balance must be struck between the interest of the accused in a fair trial and the interest of the community that the administration of justice must not be prejudiced and that justice must prevail. / Criminal & Procedural Law / LL.M. (Law)

Text in Afrikaans / Artikel 35(5) van die Grondwet 108 van 1996 handel oor die uitsluiting van ongrondwetlike getuienis en bepaal dat sodanige getuienis uitgesluit moet word indien toelating daarvan sal lei tot 'n onbillike verhoor of tot nadeel sal strek vir die regspleging. Uit die bewoording van die artikel blyk dit dat die howe geen diskresie het ten opsigte van die toelaatbaarheidsvraag nie en 'n streng uitsluitingbenadering moet volg. Die doel van hierdie verha• ndeling is om ondersoek in te stel na die mate van diskresie .en die wyse ·waarop diskresie toepas word in hierdie besluitnemingsproses. Twee benaderings is deur die howe gevolg, naamlik 'n benadering waar 'n wye diskresie uitgeoefen word en 'n benadering waar 'n beperkte diskresie uitgeoefen word, dus 'n gekwalifiseerde uitsluitingsbenadering. Die skrywer doen aan die hand dat beide gronde vir uitsluiting van belang is en dat die howe verkeie faktore moet oorweeg ten einde 'n beslissing te vel oor die insluiting of uitsluiting van ongrondwetlike getuienis. 'n Balans moet dus gehandhaaf word tussen die belang van die beskuldigde op 'n billike verhoor en die belang van die gemeenskap daarin dat regspleging nie benadeel moet word nie en dat reg en geregtigheid moet geskied / Section 35(3) of the Constitution Act 108 of 1996 deals with the exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence and stipulates that such evidence must be excluded if the admission would render the trial unfair or be detrimental to the administration of justice. From the wording of the section it seems that the courts have no jurisdiction in regard to the admissibility question and that a strict exclusionary approach must be followed. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the amount of discretion that the Courts have, and the manner in which this discretion is applied in the process of decision making. Two approaches were followed by the courts namely a wide discretionary approach and an approach where a strict discretion was applied. It is submitted that botR grounds for exclusion are of importance and that the courts must consider a variety of factors in deciding the question on the inclusion or exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence. A balance must be struck between the interest of the accused in a fair trial and the interest of the community that the administration of justice must not be prejudiced and that justice must prevail. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M. (Law)