Epic court ruling: Undercover cops cannot be believed because the police are looking after PiS’s interests

Share

Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland

More

by  Piotr Żytnicki    The courts have believed police officers uncritically for years, but that may change. In Poznań, a student who was convicted after the Women’s Strike solely on the basis of the testimony of two undercover cops was acquitted.   Not many court justifications have the chance of going down in history – […]



by  Piotr Żytnicki 

 

The courts have believed police officers uncritically for years, but that may change. In Poznań, a student who was convicted after the Women’s Strike solely on the basis of the testimony of two undercover cops was acquitted.

 

Not many court justifications have the chance of going down in history – they have to be made precisely at the right time, address fundamental issues and prove courage. Judge Sławomir Jęksa of the Regional Court in Poznań announced such a justification on Wednesday, 15 December.

 

Police detained a student because he was different

The case is only seemingly trivial. The court of ther first instance sentenced Wiktor Joachimkowski, a 20-year-old political science student, to six months of community service. It relied solely on the testimony of two police officers.

 

Wiktor took part in the Women’s Strike protests against the restriction of the abortion law in Poland in October 2020. He went to the cathedral in Poznań together with the demonstrators because the Church supported the change in the law. The protest was peaceful, although, at one point, a group of masked men threw stones at the police officers. The police did not detain them. The undercover cops only went for Wiktor, who stood out with his blond hair and was not covering his face.

 

He was convicted in the first instance of participating in an illegal, aggressive rally, all the participants of which attacked the police together. The undercover officers claimed that Wiktor was also alleged to have thrown a stone. Judge Joanna Knobel acknowledged this as an act of hooliganism.

 

The student pleaded not guilty. His friends claimed that, when stones were being thrown at the police officers, he was standing beside them and was not throwing anything. Judge Knobel ignored these testimonies and believed the undercover cops.

 

The court defends a legal assembly

Judge Sławomir Jęksa examined the appeal filed by Wiktor’s defence attorney. He pulled the judgment in the first instance to pieces on Wednesday.

 

He started with the legal analysis. He emphasised that throwing stones cannot be tolerated, as it is a dangerous phenomenon, but neither can collective liability. According to the judge, Wiktor was taking part in a legal demonstration, and the fact that several people threw stones does not make it an illegal gathering. However, the court of the first instance equated these two matters.

 

According to Jęksa, there is no way of proving that several thousand people were in collusion with a group of aggressors. Even joint chanting of slogans does not prove a common intention to attack police officers. Therefore, every person’s act should be assessed individually.

 

Wiktor could therefore be held liable not for participating in an illegal gathering, but for actively assaulting police officers. But it would first need to be proved that he actually threw a stone at them.

 

Judge Jęksa: Our state is in a major crisis

The courts in Poland uncritically believed the testimony of police officers for years. One argument was often repeated: the police officers do not know the defendant, so they have no interest in incriminating him with their testimony. When it was one word against another, the civilian was always on the losing side.

 

Judge Sławomir Jęksa held that the court of the first instance, which sentenced Wiktor, was also lacking criticism.

 

‘Our state is in a major rule of law crisis. The police are supposed to uphold the legal order, but we know that, quite frequently, they confuse upholding the rule of law with upholding the interests of the ruling party,’ said Jęksa. And he recalled that, during the protests, the police officers were blocking off the demonstrators in ‘rings’ and unlawfully detaining them.

 

‘Non-uniformed officers were also beating women with batons. The police themselves were breaking the law,’ said Jęksa. And added: ‘Reliance on the testimony of two police officers, referred to as undercover cops, breaches the rules of correct reasoning. Undercover cops have been performing various, even special tasks in recent years. Likewise, provocations cannot be ruled out. It may be unfair to the two police officers testifying in this case, but in view of what is happening in Poland, care must be taken when assessing the testimony of police officers. It cannot be accepted without verification.

 

The court does not believe the undercover cops

Judge Sławomir Jęksa pointed out that the undercover cops had strangely changed their testimony. In the heat of the moment, several hours after the protest, they testified that Wiktor was in a group, whose members started throwing stones. Therefore, they did not specify that he had thrown stones personally. They only did so several months later, when they testified in court.

 

‘Why did they not state this in their first testimony? After all, they should have remembered this better immediately after the incident,’ said Judge Jęksa. And added: ‘The fact that, after several months, the police officers surprisingly changed their testimony in unison does not add to their credibility.

 

According to the court, the credibility of the police officers was undeniably undermined by the testimony of Wiktor’s friends. They were standing beside him when the stones were flying. Judge Jęksa said that he believed these testimonies, while there were too many doubts in the case to convict the student. And that is why he is acquitting him.

 

Could this verdict set a new standard for assessing the testimony of police officers in similar cases? Poland does not have common law. This is only a judgment in this particular case and is in no way binding on other courts. However, any citizen charged solely on the basis of a police officer’s testimony can refer to this judgment.

 

Judge Jęksa in the sights of the authorities

 

This is not the first time that Judge Slawomir Jęksa criticised PiS’s breach of the rule of law. He already has disciplinary problems because, in a justification of a sentence he passed, he criticised PiS’s breach of the rule of law in Poland. He acquitted Joanna Jaskowiak, a notary public, the former wife of the mayor of Poznań, in September 2018, who was convicted in the first instance. The police prosecuted her for indecent words at a demonstration. This is because, while commenting on the PiS government, Jaskowiak said that she was ‘fucked off’.

 

‘Children probably heard these words, which is obviously a bad thing, but a much worse thing is what is happening in Poland now,’ Jęksa said in his justification.

 

He acknowledged that, in this situation, Joanna Jaśkowiak’s act was socially damaging, whereas her words ‘were perhaps necessary’. TVP’s news programme, ‘Wiadomości’, considered this justification to be ‘an example of the political involvement of certain judges’. Jan Kanthak, then a representative of the Ministry of Justice, spoke of ‘an absurdity that should never have taken place’. Meanwhile, the disciplinary commissioner, Przemyslaw Radzik, acknowledged that Jęksa had breached the principle of being apolitical and opened disciplinary proceedings against him – which, after all, have not ended to this day.

 

We need courts of two instances in a democracy

 

Wiktor Joachimkowski was being defended pro bono by Mateusz Bogacz, a young attorney-at-law from Poznań. In his closing speech he emphasised that the verdict in the first instance convicting his client destroyed the confidence of the citizens in the state: ‘The state, which claims to be democratic, is using methods from the communist regime: it raises imaginary allegations and uses officers as witnesses. The testimony of the police officers is not credible. It was changed to save the indictment. A person was chosen who could easily be caught. Is this how the police should operate?

 

Judge Jęksa’s justification impressed the lawyer. ‘It proves that we need a democracy which has courts of the second instance, which can review verdicts,’ said Attorney Bogacz.

 

Wiktor was simultaneously fighting for compensation for wrongful detention. The police kept him at the police station for over a dozen hours. The court awarded him PLN 3,000 on Wednesday 15 December.

 

The article was published in Gazeta Wyborcza on 15 December 2021. Translated by Roman Wojtasz



Author


Everything you need to know about the rule of law in Poland


More

Published

December 21, 2021

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandZbigniew Ziobrorule of lawEuropean CommissionjudgesCourt of Justice of the EUjudicial independenceNational Council of the JudiciaryEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemEuropean Court of Human RightsMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeJarosław KaczyńskiWaldemar Żurekdemocracymuzzle lawpresidential electionsPiotr SchabjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsK 3/21Hungaryelections 2020Kamil Zaradkiewiczdisciplinary commissionerBeata MorawiecPrzemysław RadzikFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsMichał LasotaEuropean Arrest WarrantMaciej NawackiPrime MinisterJulia Przyłębskamedia freedomProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19National Recovery PlanNational Council for JudiciaryPresidentfreedom of expressionŁukasz PiebiakCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawdisciplinary liability for judgeselectionsWojciech HermelińskiMarek SafjanMałgorzata GersdorfAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynAnna DalkowskaNational Public Prosecutorcriminal proceedingsfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetWłodzimierz WróbelCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorDagmara Pawełczyk-WoickaStanisław PiotrowiczJarosław WyrembakAndrzej Zollacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisK 7/21May 10 2020 electionsLex DudaNational Reconstruction PlanPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceIustitiaJarosław DudziczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczArticle 6 ECHRTHEMISEAWUrsula von der LeyenmediaimmunityCouncil of Europe2017policeJustice Defence Committee – KOSFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaSupreme Court PresidentArticle 7Venice CommissionPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaRecovery FundP 7/20Justice Fundneo-judgesPiSC-791/19National Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandK 6/21Piotr PszczółkowskiPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgeslex NGOcivil societyRussiaProfessional Liability ChamberJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikorasuspensionJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesReczkowicz and Others v. PolandUkraineKrystian MarkiewiczKonrad WytrykowskiJakub IwaniecZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczDariusz DrajewiczRafał PuchalskidefamationcourtsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsMarzanna Piekarska-DrążekEwa WrzosekEU law primacyChamber of Professional LiabilityTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independenceMaciej Miterademocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJrecommendationTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiHuman Rights CommissionerMarek MazurkiewiczCCBEAndrzej MączyńskiThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentOKO.pressZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskitransferPiotr GąciarekKrystyna PawłowiczMariusz MuszyńskiRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gatehuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencycoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMariusz Kamińskiinfringment actionsurveillanceEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauENCJJacek SasinErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiIsraelŁukasz Radkeforeign agents lawpolexitDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościLGBT free zonesAct sanitising the judiciaryequalityMarek AstMaciej FerekChamber of Extraordinary VerificationEdyta Barańskahate crimesCourt of Appeal in Krakówhate speechPutinismcriminal codeKaczyńskiGrzęda v Polandright to fair trialPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasŻurek v PolandMałgorzata Wąsek-WiaderekSobczyńska and Others v Polandct on the Protection of the PopulatioparliamentlegislationRafał Trzaskowskilex Wośmedia lawRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtPrzemysła RadzikAntykastaSenateStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczMarcin WarchołKatarzyna ChmuraElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiGrzegorz FurmankiewiczJacek CzaputowiczMarek JaskulskiPrzemysław CzarnekJoanna Kołodziej-Michałowiczlegislative practiceEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaENAPaweł StyrnaZbigniew BoniekKasta/AntykastaAndrzej SkowronŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoOmbudsmanMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiKraśnikEmilia SzmydtNorwayTomasz SzmydtNorwegian fundssmear campaignNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsE-mail scandalDworczyk leaksMichał DworczykC-487/19media pluralism#RecoveryFilesArticle 10 ECHRmilestonesConstitutional Tribunal PresidentRegional Court in Amsterdamrepairing the rule of lawharassmentOpenbaar MinisterieAK judgmentBohdan BieniekSimpson judgmentMarcin KrajewskiForum Współpracy SędziówMałgorzata Dobiecka-Woźniakelectoral processChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairspublic broadcasterWiesław KozielewiczNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeGrzegorz PudaPiotr MazurekJerzy Kwaśniewskimutual trustPetros TovmasyanLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek Mazurpopulisminterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE CommitteeStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationFrans TimmermansGazeta WyborczaUS Department of StatePollitykaBrussels IRome IISwieczkowskiArticle 2Forum shoppingadvocate generalDariusz ZawistowskitransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-156/21C-157/21C-619/18Marek Piertuszyńskidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardNational Prosecutor’s Officeintimidation of dissentersWojciech SadurskiBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberjudgeTribunal of StatePechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageAmnesty InternationalHudocKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteKrakówRzeszówborderpostal vote billprimacy