False testimony and false expert opinion 

Legal definiton 

Section 346 of the Criminal Code:

(1) Whoever, as an expert, submits a false, grossly distorted, or incomplete expert opinion shall be punished by imprisonment of up to two years or a disqualification.

(2) Whoever, as a witness or expert, before a court or an international judicial body, before a notary acting as a court commissioner, a prosecutor, or a police authority conducting pre-trial proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure, or before a parliamentary investigation commission of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic:

a) provides false information about circumstances significant for the decision or the findings of the investigation commission of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, or

b) withholds such circumstances, 

shall be punished by imprisonment of up to three years or disqualification.

(3) The perpetrator shall be punished by imprisonment for one to five years if:

a) the act referred to in paragraph 1 or 2 is committed with the intent to obtain a benefit for themselves or another; or

b) such an act is committed with the intent to seriously harm another in their employment, disrupt their family relationships, or cause them another serious harm.

(4) The perpetrator shall be punished by imprisonment for two to eight years if:

a) the act referred to in paragraph 1 or 2 is committed as a member of an organized group;

b) such an act causes significant damage; or

c) such an act results in substantial gain for themselves or another. 

(5) The perpetrator shall be punished by imprisonment for three to ten years if:

a) the act referred to in paragraph 1 or 2 causes large-scale damage; or 

b) such an act results in a large-scale gain for themselves or another.

Subjective aspect - intent

False testimony and false expert opinion is an intentional criminal offence. A criminal offence is committed intentionally if the perpetrator wanted to violate or endanger a legally protected interest in the manner specified by the Criminal Code (direct intent), or if the perpetrator knew that his actions could result in such a violation or endangerment and accepted the possibility of it occurring (indirect intent).

If the act can be deemed as mere negligence rather than intent, it does not constitute the described criminal offence. 

Defense

There are various defense strategies available. Regarding false testimony, the following considerations may arise based on the elements of this criminal offense:

• Before which authority was the testimony given?
• How significant was the testimony for the proceedings?
• What did the perpetrator know about the proceedings and the relevant circumstances?
• What was the perpetrator's intention?
• How was the testimony formulated? Was it stated with certainty or with doubts and reservations? Was it a categorical conclusion, or merely an opinion or assumption?
• What falsehoods did the perpetrator include in the testimony? What did they withhold?
• How much time had elapsed since the events the perpetrator testified about?
• What was the relationship between the perpetrator and the aggrieved party?
  
• What was the relationship between the perpetrator and the party in whose favour the testimony was given?
  
• What knowledge did the perpetrator have about the facts they testified to? What was the source of this knowledge? Did they perceive the relevant circumstances directly or through someone else?
  
• Are there any circumstances excluding unlawfulness present?
  
• Was the perpetrator sane at the time of the act? Were they under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or mental illness?
• Was the perpetrator's intent directed towards the decisive facts?

Regarding false expert opinion, the following considerations may arise based on the elements of this criminal offense:

• Was it an expert opinion or, for instance, merely a professional statement?
• Which parts/conclusions of the expert opinion were flawed?
• Did the issue involve unequivocal data or a professional judgment?
  
• Is there a standardized procedure for the specific matter, or is it entirely at the expert's discretion?
  
• Did the expert explain their methodology?
  
• What was the severity of the flaws?
  
• What potential consequences could the flaws have had?
  
• What was the relationship between the perpetrator and the aggrieved party?
  
• Are there any circumstances excluding unlawfulness present?
• Was the perpetrator sane at the time of the act? Were they under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or mental illness?
• Was the perpetrator's intent directed towards the decisive facts?