Defendant’s confession at the main hearing in Croatian and comparative law: just another piece of evidence, guilty plea or a tacit agreement?

The effects of a defendant’s confession are not the same in all legal orders. In civil law systems, confession is usually perceived as an ordinary piece of evidence, while in common law culture it is considered a guilty plea whose truthfulness is not to be questioned by the judge. However, this broad differentiation is not straightforward. In Croatia, if a defendant confesses to a criminal offence punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to five years at the main hearing and agrees to the sentence proposed by the prosecutor, the trial court is not allowed to impose a sentence higher than the one proposed by the prosecutor. This can motivate tacit agreements and unregulated negotiations between the parties after the main hearing has already begun, and it is unclear if the legislator had such a scenario in mind when enacting this provision. In order to elucidate these problems in a broader perspective, the authors have analysed Croatian, German, Austrian, French, Italian and English law, with an emphasis on the position of the defendant after a confession at the main hearing, the effects of the confession, the role of the court in further proceedings and the victim’s rights. After the comparative analysis, the authors presented their opinion on the current legal situation in Croatia, especially Art. 417a (6) and (7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, together with a proposal for legislative changes