Five 1000 bucks a ticket for walking with a kid on the sidewalk? How to interpret Article 89 of the Code of Offence?

In fresh days, there have been quite a few articles on any absurd evidence in Polish law. According to any media reports, parents are to face up to PLN 5,000 of the mandate for walking with the kid on the sidewalk. The reason for the confusion is rather awkward and allegedly unclear provision of the Code of Offence. What do legal experts say about this? Can parents truly fear punishment?

£5,000 for walking with a kid on the sidewalk – why this absurd?

In fresh times, the net has flooded a wave of articles threatening parents with 5,000 gold tickets for a simple walk with a kid on the sidewalk. At first glance, it may seem at least suspicious not to say absurd. And it turns out that these reports have small to do with the truth. Although any lawyers admit that a provision that has become the origin of all the misunderstanding can actually make a slight confusion.

All points to the fact that behind all the confusion lies the explanation of the provisions of the Code of Offence by the territory Court in Sokolka. In 2019, he asked the Constitutional Court to measure the compatibility of Article 89 of the Code of Offence with the Constitution. It was then that journalists and lawyers drew attention to certain ambiguities in this record. This is about the following record.

Who, under the work of care or supervision of a insignificant under the age of 7, allows a insignificant to reside on a public road or on rail vehicle tracks shall be liable to a fine or a reprimand.

The Court of First Instance argued that the literal explanation of that provision makes it possible to interpret it in an absurd way. This means that, in principle, “every stay of a insignificant under the age of 7 (even under the supervision or supervision of his parents or carers) on a public road or track of a rail vehicle makes it essential to take work for the persons on whom the work of care rested at the moment”.

However, in consequence to a request, the Constitutional Court ruled that the provision was constructed correctly and in accordance with the principles of legislation, and that its examination should be carried out only in the context of the Traffic Law, which is cited below.

1. A kid under 7 may usage the road only under the care of a individual who has reached at least 10 years of age. This does not apply to the residence zone.
3. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to a pedestrian-only road’

The strategy lecture so clearly states that the punishment can only endanger parents/carers who leave their kid under 7 unattended. In addition, it is worth noting that even this provision does not apply to surviving in a region or crossing a pedestrian-only road.

Why is there a misunderstanding?

Although the confusion has been explained, inactive many lawyers indicate that the recipe is somewhat problematic and cumbersomely constructed. Indeed, interpreting it without context can lead to absurdity.

From the editorial point of view of Article 89 of the Law, it is indeed ill-worded, as its wording indicates that minors under the age of 7 may not be on the public road or track at all. Even erstwhile he's under parental care. At the end of this provision, before the sanction, the phrase “without care” is missing.

As already mentioned, the full misunderstanding and information suggesting PLN 5000 of the mandate came from the interpretations of the territory Court in Sokółka. However, the Constitutional Court has resolved all possible doubts, and according to the ruling there is no specified punishment for parents. However, this would be highly absurd – it would mean that parents cannot walk with their children on any roads or paths, and even that they cannot carry them by car or bike. specified a recipe could not be right.

A radically formalistic explanation of the provision of Article 89 would lead to the absurd conclusion that offences are committed by anyone who does not hold a child's hand during walking or otherwise immobilises him. It's natural for a kid to request freedom of movement.

See also: