The background of past is the 2020 government regulation on the ban on moving on fresh Year's Eve 31 December 2020. Many people considered it illegal to deprive people of their freedom of movement
Known lawyers besides criticised specified decisions of the government. Prof. Monika Płatek claimed that "The government is investigating us to deprive us of our rights." The reaction of Polish citizens was a protest on 31 December 2020 under the slogan "Citizen detention of curfew".
SEE ALSO: New Year's Eve protests. Polish citizens halt curfew [PHOTOS]
Paweł Kasprzak was accused of violating the physical integrity of an officer on work (Article 222 par. 1 KK) and insulting that officer (Article 226 par. 1 KK). In 2022, the court of First Instance acquitted him of these charges. The court of the second instance, after examining the prosecutor's appeal, retained the acquittal in force. In consequence to specified rulings, the prosecutor filed an annulment with the ultimate Court.
photo by Catherine Farch
photo by Catherine FarchWednesday 10 May 2023. The ultimate Court recalled the subject substance of the case and the charges:
- Cezary Paul Kasprzak grabbed and pushed the hand of an officer on duty.
- He utilized publicly, for no reason insulting words to an officer (“Get back, you jerk”).
The Prosecutor requested the repeal of the judgement of the Court of Appeal (second instance) arguing that the decisions of the Courts of First and Second Instance could not be accepted, so that the officer who received the order from the superiors was entitled to measure independently whether the order was lawful. specified expectations would prevent the effective operation of state services. Besides, it was adequate for people to identify themselves as police officers, that would solve the problem. Citizens should follow instructions and should only lodge a complaint with the police erstwhile they have identified themselves. The prosecutor besides referred to simple respect for another man – a police officer whom Kasprzak failed.
Let us callback that the earlier ruling stated that the police's actions on 31 December 2020 were illegal, and so the officers who kept the participants of the spontaneous assembly for respective hours in the cold were deprived of the legal protection granted by the Code to public officers "in connection with the performance of their duties".
Kasprzak's defender, Adjek Bashuk, stressed that the content of the charge of erasure, despite raising the charge of violation of substantive law, is in fact identical to the plea of appeal, which is unacceptable.
In addition, ‘the suspect stubbornly omits the facts which were not disputed by him in the erasure, focusing on the fact that the courts were not entitled to measure the legality of the fresh Year's Regulation>>>. They had specified a right by performing a dispersed control of constitutionality" [means that universal courts can regulation straight from the Constitution, on the same principles as they regulation e.g. from the Criminal Code—ed.]. “The courts of the first and second instance examined the case very thoroughly,” said Counselor Bashuk – listening to the accused, witnesses, watching a six-hour account of the course of events. The public prosecutor did not appear at any of the trials at which the court was acquainted with the recording.
At 6:30 p.m., the police surrounded respective twelve – respective twelve people standing with the banner at the de Gaulle monument. The condition to get out of the cordon was to identify yourself. 1 of the participants – a 74-year-old man was denied the anticipation to go to the toilet. Standing a fewer hours in the cold, he was forced to urinate into a plastic cup. Others were denied the anticipation of receiving meals and warm drinks from people outside the boiler. People, mostly of a highly mature age, stood in the cold, on a tiny section of the sidewalk, from 6:30 to 11.00 a.m. They were held due to the fact that they refused to identify themselves. lawyer Radek Bashuk felt that specified behaviour of state officials was part of the definition of torture. He's filed a motion to dismiss the deletion.
Finally, the suspect Paul Kasprzak spoke, saying that the aim of the picket of the citizens of Poland was to draw attention to the fact that the authorities of the state are moving further and further in the perception of civilian rights by making decisions which are not binding in the laws. People stayed in the cold for hours, but they knew what they were writing for. The State services ‘did not fail’ have taken actions which the court declared illegal. And although nothing happened to us, Kasprzak said, it turns out that we “replied”. Shortly thereafter, a state of emergency was unlawfully introduced on the Belarusian border. There, after a fewer days, they lie under the wall freezing and dying people.
The ultimate Court – the Criminal Chamber – composed of justice Piotr Mirek and justice Marek Pietruszyński, justice Jarosław Matras (president) dismissed the cassation as manifestly unfounded. In giving the oral recitals of the SN, it concluded that the cassation charge was formally constructed incorrectly. In the margins of his deliberations, the court added that, for fundamental reasons, the judgement of the appeal court was absolutely right. In circumstances where persons participating in the picket exercise their rights under the Assembly Act and Article 54 of the Polish Constitution, police intervention had no legal basis. Police have exceeded the standards of state service intervention. The ultimate Court found the behaviour of officers provocative and harassmental.
