Distance from Here, Beyond Efficiency

The Legal and Practical Balance of Remote Interrogation in Criminal Proceedings

Abstract

Introduction: The legal framework for remote interrogation has matured following Act XC of 2017, Decree 12/2018 (VI. 12.) IM, and the amendments of 2021–2023, and has been rapidly adopted in police practice. However, it is less clear how efficiency gains relate to the quality of criminal tactics and procedural guarantees, particularly in the context of initial interrogations and confrontations. The study examines this balance and contributes empirical data to the professional debate.

Objectives: This study aims to present the legal and practical balance of remote interrogation, exploring the volume and patterns of application, identifying the limitations on guarantee and criminal tactics, and determining the conditions for targeted, case-based application.

Methodology: The research uses a normative analysis of the relevant regulations (Act XC of 2017; Decree 12/2018 of the Minister of Justice; amendments of 2021/2023 – simplified telecommunications, presence of a defense attorney) and builds on an empirical basis: statistics from 2019–2024 provided by the ORFK in response to a public interest data request, two semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire survey of 208 people. The analysis covered the development of case numbers over time, the application rates of simplified telecommunications, and territorial concentrations, with particular attention to the BRFK and the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén VMRFK districts. Qualitative sources enabled the examination of finer dimensions of criminal tactical enforcement and the practical implementation of the right to defense.

Results: The number of remote interrogations increased sharply between 2019 and 2024 (2019: 1,783; by 31 October 2024: 23,591), while simplified telecommunications were used in 14,605 ​​cases between 2020 and 2024, especially in the BRFK and Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén VMRFK areas. The increase initially accelerated due to the pandemic. Still, the tool has been permanently integrated into police practice due to its cost- and time-efficiency, as well as the benefits it provides for witness and prisoner protection. At the same time, 79% of respondents believe that criminal tactics principles – such as psychic contact and the interpretation of nonverbal signals – cannot be applied with the same efficiency in a telecommunications environment, which poses a significant limitation, especially during initial interrogations and confrontations. The right to defense is generally ensured through separate, unmonitored defense-charged communication channels; however, technical and institutional circumstances sometimes raise concerns about trust. The introduction and routine application are hindered by the additional administrative burden, the complexity of organizational and IT processes, and the shortcomings of practical training; in parallel, the number of error codes has increased proportionally with the system's load. Overall, the patterns reveal the coexistence of efficiency benefits, warranty, and criminal tactical risks, which justifies a differentiated, case-based application.

Conclusion: The primary lesson is that telecommunication tools measurably increase the efficiency of criminal proceedings, but only within a framework that does not impair the level of fair procedure and the quality of evidence. Another finding is the need for a “hybrid reality”: targeted, case-based application with clear legal criteria, technical solutions that more strongly guarantee confidential communication between the defense attorney and the defendant, and practice-oriented training. As a perspective, the development of standardized quality indicators for evaluating remote interrogations, as well as a separate examination of the initial interrogations and confrontations, is proposed.