Subject and Keywords:
The article addresses the issues of the crime of not stopping for roadside control introduced to the Polish criminal law system by virtue of the amendment of 23 March 2017. The new construction does not so much criminalize, but re-valorises the criminalization of some behaviours that were previously treated as offenses (Article 92 § 2 of the Penal Code). The study is an attempt to draw attention to some of the most important doubts - both of a teleological and interpretative nature - caused by the very idea of typing a crime under Art. 178b of the Penal Code, as well as its individual features. The article refers to the issue of rationalizing the discussed solution, its justification, the functions assumed by the legislator and the consequences of its introduction in the field of judicial practice. The text also recalls some paradoxes that are associated with the discussed regulation with a different criminal law assessment of behaviour - in fact analogically socially harmful - depending on the "dynamics", circumstances and conditions of evasion of the perpetrator of road control. The form in which the crime of escape from pursuit can be committed is problematic. A doubt arises, expressed in the literature, also present in court decisions, whether it is a crime of omission, action or a mixed form justifying treating it as a two-act offense. An attempt to clearly indicate the subject of protection of this crime also raises controversy. Certainly, the researcher of this issue cannot satisfy the conclusions which in this respect can be derived from the very location of the analyzed provision in the structure of the Penal Code. The doubts expressed in the doctrine are also raised by the nature of the crime of non-refraining from control brought by the 2017 amendment. In this context, resistance may be caused even by the abstractness of the exposure of legal goods to danger, which states the realization of its features. Important, especially from the perspective of applying the law, are the controversy regarding the convergence with other provisions (offenses) in which the regulation of art. 178b of the Penal Code it may remain, especially those that relate to relations with other attacks against security in transportation. Attention is drawn to the lack of unanimity - both in the literature and judicial decisions - even in the scope of such a fundamental issue as whether this concurrence is of a unified or multifunctional confluence. Finally, the article deals with the limits of penalisation of behaviours covered by the regulation of art. 178b of the Penal Code outlined in the sanction of this provision. Doubts may arise because - in the light of other regulations protecting similar legal goods - the degree of punishment of the analyzed offense is adequate to the quality and degree of its danger to endangered goods.