TVP’s news, ‘Wiadomości’, strikes at Judge Beata Morawiec with a leak from the prosecutor’s files

Share

Journalist covering law and politics for OKO.press. Previously journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita, Polska The Times, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

More

TVP’s news, ‘Wiadomości’, struck at Judge Beata Morawiec, known for her defence of the free courts, with material that sounded like a sentence that has already been passed against her. The material, which was based on a leak from the files from the prosecutor’s office, was broadcast two days before the Disciplinary Chamber’s meeting, which will decide on whether to cancel the judge’s immunity.



The several-minute-long material devoted to Judge Morawiec, which was broadcast on Saturday, 10 October, bore the title of ‘“Wiadomości” reveals evidence of pathology’. The host announced it as follows: ‘Journalists from “Wiadomości” obtained shocking testimonies of witnesses suggesting that Morawiec took advantage of her position and influence in the Polish courts to conduct criminal activities.’

 

The ‘Wiadomości’ viewers learned from Adrian Borecki’s and Adam Krawczak’s material that Judge Beata Morawiec, president of the Themis association of judges, makes out that she is a critic of Minister Ziobro’s ‘reforms’, while she herself has problems with the law.

 

The National Public Prosecutor’s Office wants to press charges against her, which is why it applied to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court to cancel the judge’s immunity. (The Chamber will consider the motion on Monday, 12 October).

 

While discussing two allegations of the prosecutor’s office, namely the judge’s alleged acceptance of a bribe in the form of a telephone for a favourable verdict and the alleged preparation of a fictitious opinion, the authors of the material illustrated these with quotations from explanations and testimonies submitted to the prosecutor’s office by people accusing Judge Morawiec.

 

Marek B., who was selling telephones, told the prosecutors, as a suspect, that the judge had promised him a fair verdict in his family’s case, which she issued in 2012. He was supposed to have left her a telephone in the secretarial office for that.

 

Another person confirmed that Marek B. had been walking about the court boasting that the judge had issued a ‘fair’ verdict. Meanwhile, it supposedly arises from a third person’s testimony that the judge did not prepare an opinion for PLN 5,000, which the Court of Appeal in Krakow ordered in 2013.

 

One more train of thought appeared in the material presented by ‘Wiadomości’ that Judge Morawiec was supposed to have taken advantage of her position in court to enable her brother’s company, which was selling hygiene and cleaning products, to win contracts.

 

Deputy Minister of Justice Sebastian Kaleta stated in the material that the judge’s ‘torpedoing of the reform of the judiciary’ may not necessarily be selfless, because judges can defend their own interests. Meanwhile, the editor-in-chief of ‘Gazeta Polska’ compared Judge Morawiec’s case to ‘a typical arrangement in Chicago in the 1930s, when the mafia was defending its judges and the judges were defending their mafia.’

 

The prosecutor’s office wants to press criminal charges against the judge who stood up to Ziobro. What are these allegations worth?

 

What ‘Wiadomości did not present

It was no coincidence that the material appeared in ‘Wiadomości’ just two days before the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber at the Supreme Court, which will decide on Monday, 12 October as to whether to cancel Judge Morawiec’s immunity.

 

It is also interesting that Wiadomości’ had access to the testimony against the judge. However, her defence attorneys were only able to see a part of the files that the National Prosecutor’s Office submitted to the Chamber on Friday, 9 October. Such a decision was made by Judge Adam Tomczyński, who will examine the motion to cancel the immunity on his own. Tomczyński also prohibited the defence attorneys from making copies of documents in the files.

 

However, what is important is what was not included in the material presented by ‘Wiadomości’ and what makes us approach the accusations of the prosecutor’s office with a great deal of reserve and doubt. Because they appear to be exaggerated and deliberately targeted at Judge Morawiec, who has been defending the free courts in recent years and has been criticizing the ‘reforms’ of the Minister of Justice, Zbigniew Ziobro.

 

There are several reasons for doubting the intentions of the National Prosecutor’s Office, which is headed by Bogdan Święczkowski, a confidant of Zbigniew Ziobro.

 

First, the context of the testimony. We are not familiar with the circumstances under which the people incriminating the judge were questioned by the prosecutor’s office. It is known that, in the case of the telephone, the judge is being accused by Marek B. (he submitted his explanations as a suspect) and indirectly by the former director of the Court of Appeal in Krakow (he submitted his explanations as a suspect) and that court’s former accountant (she gave testimony as a witness).

 

The accountant and former director are involved in a broader investigation of financial irregularities at the Court of Appeal in Krakow. Judge Morawiec’s case is a tiny fragment of that. So why did they incriminate the judge? Have they been offered something for incriminating evidence? As Onet wrote in 2019, the former accountant confessed that she had a proposition from the prosecutors to testify against known judges from Krakow. However, in return, she was supposed to receive the status of a so-called small crown witness. And it so happens that the known judges from Krakow are Beata Morawiec and Judge Waldemar Żurek, who are among the leaders of the defence of free courts.

 

Second, ‘Wiadomości’ only presented a small part of the testimony. Meanwhile, experienced lawyers – specialists in criminal law – know that testimony (given by witnesses) or explanations (given by suspects) need to be read in whole and ideally together with all the files from the investigation. Because it is then known what procedural position the people questioned by the prosecutor’s office have and with what they are threatened. The stage of the investigation at which they were questioned is known. The details of the testimony and the questions posed by the prosecutors are also important. All this affects the credibility of the testimony. This is very important in this case because of point 3 and because the former director and former accountant, who are incriminating the judge, were indicted by the prosecutor’s office in April 2020 in connection with the main investigation into the irregularities at the court of appeal.

 

Third, Beata Morawiec has been denying the allegations from the beginning. The judge ordered a private expert opinion in confirmation of the fact that she had prepared the opinion at the request of the court of appeal. It transpires from this that she had prepared the file with the opinion for the court in 2013. Her defence attorneys will submit this opinion to the Disciplinary Chamber on Monday. And perhaps its disclosure a few days ago resulted in the reaction from ‘Wiadomości’ with the leak from the files from the prosecutor’s office.

 

The judge also denies that she had ever taken any telephone. She cannot remember Marek B. Of course, she presided over the bench that heard the appeal in his case. And this bench issued a judgment that was favourable for him, but someone else was the rapporteur of the case, who has the greatest influence on the verdict.

 

Morawiec emphasizes that she always tries to pass a fair judgment in every case. Furthermore, the allegation of accepting a bribe seems absurd and not very credible, because it means that the judge would have to have taken the telephone. Which nobody wants to believe.

 

Judge Morawiec also claims that her brother’s company had not been doing any business with the court. It only delivered toilet paper to the court once, in an emergency, for around PLN 500, because it had run out, while the procedures related to the selection of a new company in a tender were still in progress. The prosecutor’s office is not charging her with criminal allegations for this, but ‘Wiadomości’ announced that the judge wanted her brother to do business with the court through nepotism.

 

Fourth, Beata Morawiec won a case against Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro. ‘Wiadomości’ did not mention a word about that. In January 2019, the Regional Court in Warsaw ordered Ziobro to apologize to Beata Morawiec in a non-final verdict for communication from his ministry that had slandered her. The ministry issued the communication in 2017 after dismissing Beata Morawiec from the position of president of the Regional Court in Krakow. Her dismissal was presented in comparison with the detention of the directors of the Krakow courts (the directors report to the ministry) in connection with an investigation into the irregularities at the Court of Appeal in Krakow.

 

In the communication, Morawiec was also accused of the fact that the courts subordinated to her were working badly. The court in Warsaw held that the communication had deliberately struck at the judge and ordered an apology to her. The minister’s appeal is currently pending.

 

The community of Polish judges believes this judgment is not without significance to Judge Morawiec’s current situation. It could have humiliated Zbigniew Ziobro, who is simultaneously the Prosecutor General.

 

The former director and accountant of the Court of Appeal in Krakow testified against the judge after she filed her action against the Minister of Justice. Interestingly, Marek B., who spoke about the telephone as a bribe, was questioned after the court had issued its verdict in which it ordered the minister to apologize.

 

‘Today Beata, tomorrow you’

The motion of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office to cancel Judge Morawiec’s immunity will be examined by Adam Tomczyński from the Disciplinary Chamber. He is a former bankruptcy judge and a former lawyer. Before his appointment to the Chamber, he had been praising the current authorities on Twitter. He was a member of the Chamber which suspended Paweł Juszczyszyn from his judicial duties. Beata Morawiec will not be at the hearing at the Chamber on Monday, because she does not consider the Chamber to be a legal court. Her defence attorneys will be there.

 

Morawiec can count on the support of the judges who support her. They do not believe the prosecutor’s office. They believe it deliberately wants to discredit Morawiec in order to strike at the whole of the judicial community.

 

Importantly, in this case, the prosecutor’s office went so far as to conduct a dawn raid at the judge’s home, breaching the immunity that protects her. The laptop she uses at work was confiscated under the threat of conducting a search of her home. Lawyers, including the former president of the Constitutional Tribunal and the former Commissioner for Human Rights, Prof. Andrzej Zoll, said the actions of the prosecutor’s office were illegal.

 

Therefore a rally will be held on Monday in front of the Supreme Court in support of Judge Morawiec. Similar rallies will be held in courts throughout Poland, including in Krakow. ‘Let’s show our support in the social media – remember – today Beata, tomorrow you. Anyone can be slandered, any honest person, who is inconvenient to the authorities, can be accused. Let’s not allow the judges to be intimidated. Let us stand together – solidarity is our strength,’ the Themis Association of Judges encourages participation in the rallies.

 

Judge Morawiec will be working at her court in Krakow on Monday. She will also consider action against TVP for Saturday’s material about her. ‘This was typical material supporting the argument of throwing mud at a person and destroying him. The materials from the investigation have been published, while the judge cannot say anything about it to defend herself, because of the secrecy of the investigation,’ Judge Dariusz Mazur, press officer of the Themis association says.

 

Translated by Roman Wojtasz

 

The text was posted in Polish at OKO.press.



Author


Journalist covering law and politics for OKO.press. Previously journalist at Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita, Polska The Times, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.


More

Published

October 12, 2020

Tags

Supreme CourtConstitutional TribunalDisciplinary ChamberPolandjudgesdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawZbigniew ZiobroNational Council of the JudiciaryCourt of Justice of the EUjudicial independenceEuropean CommissionEuropean UnionAndrzej DudaMałgorzata ManowskaCourt of JusticeEuropean Court of Human RightsMinister of JusticeIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemAdam Bodnarmuzzle lawJarosław KaczyńskiNational Recovery PlanCJEUMateusz MorawieckiCommissioner for Human Rightsneo-judgesCourt of Justice of the European UniondemocracyPrzemysław RadzikWaldemar ŻurekNational Council for Judiciarypresidential electionselectionselections 2023disciplinary commissionercriminal lawJulia PrzyłębskaPiotr SchabKamil Zaradkiewiczmedia freedomharassmentpreliminary rulingsHungarySupreme Administrative Courtelections 2020K 3/21Dagmara Pawełczyk-WoickajudiciaryFirst President of the Supreme CourtŁukasz PiebiakprosecutorsPresidentRecovery FundBeata MorawiecPaweł JuszczyszynProsecutor GeneralMichał Lasotafreedom of expressionMaciej NawackiEuropean Arrest WarrantSejmprosecutionCOVID-19Regional Court in KrakówCriminal ChamberNational ProsecutorConstitutionPrime MinisterMinistry of JusticecourtsMałgorzata GersdorfMarek SafjanEU budgetdisciplinary liability for judgesMaciej FerekOSCEWojciech HermelińskiExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberIustitiacriminal proceedingsWłodzimierz WróbelVenice Commissionconditionality mechanismAleksander StepkowskiTHEMISLabour and Social Security ChamberStanisław BiernatPiScommission on Russian influenceStanisław PiotrowiczPresident of the Republic of PolandNCJimmunityconditionalityAnna DalkowskaJustice FundcorruptionLaw and JusticeNational Public ProsecutorCouncil of Europefreedom of assemblyKrystian MarkiewiczreformsReczkowicz and Others v. PolandKrzysztof Parchimowiczacting first president of the Supreme Court2017policeSenateAndrzej Zollmedia independenceSLAPPdefamationStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationLGBTJustice Defence Committee – KOSEwa ŁętowskaDidier ReyndersFreedom HouseAmsterdam District CourtMay 10 2020 electionsXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandOrdo IurisPresident of PolandAndrzej StępkaBroda and Bojara v PolandSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramPiotr GąciarekJarosław WyrembakPM Mateusz MorawieckiArticle 7Next Generation EUConstitutional Tribunal PresidentUrsula von der LeyenLex DudaTVPmediaLex Super OmniaProfessional Liability ChamberreformJarosław DudziczK 7/21National Reconstruction PlansuspensionparliamentChamber of Professional LiabilityEAWArticle 6 ECHRP 7/20Supreme Court PresidentLech GarlickiMichał WawrykiewiczabortionPiotr PrusinowskiNational Electoral Commissionelectoral codeJanusz NiemcewiczTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaStanisław RymarMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaKazimierz DziałochaBogdan ŚwięczkowskiNetherlandsAndrzej MączyńskiMarek MazurkiewiczvetoStefan JaworskiMirosław GranatOLAFBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaViktor OrbanJózef IwulskiMaciej MiteraSLAPPsjudcial independenceWojciech ŁączkowskiAdam JamrózPATFoxFerdynand RymarzKonrad WytrykowskiRafał Puchalskismear campaignmilestonesKrakówMarzanna Piekarska-Drążekstate of emergencyUkraineelectoral processBelaruscourt presidentsAdam SynakiewiczXero Flor v. PolandAstradsson v Icelandright to fair trialEdyta BarańskaJoanna Hetnarowicz-SikoraCentral Anti-Corruption BureauJakub IwaniecsurveillancePegasusDariusz DrajewiczJoanna Misztal-KoneckaCivil ChamberK 6/21Wojciech MaczugaSzymon Szynkowski vel SękDariusz ZawistowskiOKO.presselections integrityelections fairnessMarek ZubikBohdan ZdziennickiMirosław WyrzykowskiSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczPiotr TulejaJerzy StępieńAndrzej RzeplińskitransparencyMariusz KamińskiMaciej Taborowskiinsulting religious feelingsPaweł Filipekpublic mediaMariusz MuszyńskiKrystyna PawłowiczlexTuskcourt changesMarek PietruszyńskiMichał LaskowskiSupreme Audit Officeabuse of state resourcesLaw on the NCJEuropean ParliamentJarosław GowincoronavirusRussiaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczFree Courts11 January March in WarsawCCBEPiebiak gatehuman rightsrecommendationC-791/19Human Rights CommissionerMarcin WarchołLGBT ideology free zonesreportEuropean Association of JudgesPiotr Pszczółkowskiretirement agedecommunizationGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court Judgesintimidation of dissentersdemocratic backslidingpublic opinion pollZiobroEU law primacyMarian BanaśThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europecriminal codeBelgiumlex NGOEwa Wrzosekcivil societytransferAdam Tomczyńskimedia pluralismBohdan Bieniek#RecoveryFilesFrans TimmermansLIBE Committeerepairing the rule of lawUS Department of StateMarcin KrajewskiKarolina Miklaszewska2018NGOFull-Scale Election Observation MissionODIHRNations in TransitStanisław ZabłockiPetros TovmasyanJerzy KwaśniewskiPiotr MazurekGrzegorz PudaNational Recovery Plan Monitoring CommitteeWiesław KozielewiczChamber of Extraordinary Control and Public AffairsMałgorzata Dobiecka-WoźniakCouncil of the EURafał LisakMichał DworczykWojciech Sadurskidefamatory statementsRome StatuteInternational Criminal CourtC-619/18Rights and Values Programmejudgepress releaseAntykastalex WoślegislationCourt of Appeal in KrakówPutinismKaczyńskiPaulina AslanowiczJarosław MatrasMałgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderekct on the Protection of the PopulatioWorld Justice Project awardStanisław ZdunIrena BochniakKrystyna Morawa-FryźlewiczŁukasz BilińskiIvan MischenkoJoanna Kołodziej-MichałowiczMonika FrąckowiakArkadiusz CichockiEmilia SzmydtTomasz SzmydtE-mail scandalAndrzej SkowronKasta/AntykastaKatarzyna Chmuraadvocate generalGrzegorz FurmankiewiczMarek JaskulskiEwa ŁąpińskaZbigniew ŁupinaPaweł StyrnaSwieczkowskiDworczyk leaksMałgorzata FroncHater ScandalAleksandra RutkowskaGeneral Court of the EUArkadiusz RadwanLech WałęsaWałęsa v. Polandright to an independent and impartial tribunal established by lawpilot-judgmentDonald Tusk governmentRafał WojciechowskiDobrochna Bach-Goleckalex RaczkowskiPiotr Raczkowskithe Spy ActdisinformationCT Presidentfundamental rightsNational Broadcasting Councilelection fairnessequal treatmentcivil lawMarcin MatczakDariusz KornelukNational School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (KSSiP)codification commissiondelegationsWatchdog PolskaDariusz BarskiLasotapopulismState TribunalRadosław BaszukAction PlanJustice MinistryVěra JourováDonald Tuskjustice system reformAnti-SLAPP Directiveinsultgag lawsuitsstrategic investmentinvestmentlustrationJakub KwiecińskidiscriminationAct on the Supreme Courtelectoral commissionsEuropean Court of HuKrzysztof RączkaPoznańTomasz Koszewskitest of independenceSebastian MazurekElżbieta Jabłońska-MalikJoanna Scheuring-WielgusoppositionThe National Centre for Research and DevelopmentAdam Gendźwiłłtransitional justiceDariusz DończykKoan LenaertsKarol WeitzZbigniew KapińskiAnna GłowackaCourt of Appeal in WarsawOsiatyński'a ArchiveEUUS State DepartmentAssessment Actenvironmentextraordinary commissionWhite PaperKaspryszyn v PolandNCR&DNCBiREuropean Anti-Fraud Office OLAFJustyna WydrzyńskaAgnieszka Brygidyr-DoroszJoanna KnobelCrimes of espionageJędrzej Dessoulavy-ŚliwińskiMarek Piertuszyńskihate speechhate crimesmedia taxadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandPrzemysław CzarnekJacek CzaputowiczMarcin RomanowskiElżbieta KarskaPrzemysła Radzikmedia lawRafał TrzaskowskiSobczyńska and Others v PolandTelex.huJelenForum shoppingFirst President of the Suprme CourtEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeSebastian KaletaOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeC-156/21C-157/21foreign agents lawArticle 2Rome IIJózsef SzájerChamber of Extraordinary VerificationKlubrádióequalityGazeta WyborczaLGBT free zonesPollitykaBrussels Ilegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekAK judgmentautocratizationMultiannual Financial FrameworkOpenbaar MinisterieRegional Court in Amsterdamabortion rulingArticle 10 ECHRprotestsinterim measuresLeszek MazurIrena MajcherAmsterdamLMmutual trustthe Regional Court in Warsawpublic broadcasterUnited NationsForum Współpracy Sędziówthe NetherlandsDenmarkact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsNorwegian fundsNorwayKraśnikOmbudsmanKarlsruheAusl 301 AR 104/19SwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońC-487/19GermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUIrelandMarek AstLSOright to protestSławomir JęksaWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman Giertychtrans-Atlantic valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinancelawyersMirosław Wróblewskirepressive actborderprimacyEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej RutkiewiczAct of 20 December 2019Amnesty InternationalJacek SasinEvgeni TanchevKochenovPechPaulina Kieszkowska-KnapikMaria Ejchart-DuboisAgreement for the Rule of LawPorozumienie dla PraworządnościAct sanitising the judiciaryFreedom in the WorldECJErnest BejdaThe First President of the Supreme CourtMaciej CzajkaMariusz JałoszewskiŁukasz RadkepolexitFrackowiakDolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandRzeszówKoen LenaertsharrassmentOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeinfringment actionHudocPKWKonrad SzymańskiPiotr BogdanowiczPiotr BurasLeon KieresIpsosEU valuesNational Prosecutor’s OfficeBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberTribunal of StateOlsztyn courtPrzemysła CzarnekEducation MinisterENCJauthoritarian equilibriumArticle 258postal voteTVNjournalistslexTVNEwa MaciejewskaGerard BirgfellerPolish mediaAlina CzubieniakSimpson judgmentpostal vote billclientelismoligarchic systemEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officeresolution of 23 January 2020Polish National FoundationLux VeritatisMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykIsrael