Description of the facts
The case afraid an incidental which occurred on 6.1.2023 in Krakow. M.P. He was accused of hitting the victim, The President, in her face, and twisted her fingers to the right hand, resulting in a female having a facial bruise and a broken metacarpal bone. The injury resulted in a violation of body function for a period exceeding 7 days, which fulfilled the marks of the act of Article 157(1) KK.
This act was a direct consequence of events occurring during walking with dogs. An injured, professional dog trainer, she and her friends went for a walk with the dogs. At the same time on the walk was M.P. with his wife and 2 dogs who at 1 point were let off the leash. 1 of the defendant's dogs ran to a group of dogs led by the victim, taking an aggressive stance. In response, the injured dog besides responded with growling. Assessing the situation as possibly dangerous, The president She entered between the dogs and powerfully pushed the dog distant with the accused leg. At that time, the suspect remained remote, had no control over his dog, primarily not calling him, nor was he able to halt him physically. The suspect concluded that the victim had attacked (kicked) his dog, which caused him to be aggressive, which was expressed as kicking the injured dog.
Following these events, there was a conflict between M.P. and The President, as a consequence of which she was turned respective times, her hand was twisted and suffered a fracture of the metacarpal bone.
By judgement of 6.2.2024, SR for Kraków-Podgórze recognized M.P. for the guilty individual and fined him PLN 6,000 (120 stakes of PLN 50), and besides ruled the work to pay to the victim PLN 3,000 as compensation and PLN 3,000 as compensation.
Following his appeal, the Court of First Instance of the Second Instance, in judgement of 10 December 2024, IV Ka 755/24, acquitted the defendant, uncovering that he acted under the conditions of defence necessary.
Cassation and position of the ultimate Court
The cassation of this decision was brought by the territory lawyer in Krakow, accusing, among others, the violation of Article 7, Article 410 and Article 433 §2 of the NCP, pointing to a circumstantial and selective analysis of the evidence and omitting crucial recordings and testimonies of witnesses. The SN accepted this argument and stated that SO had made any, not a free assessment of the evidence, based almost exclusively on the explanations of the accused and his wife. SN noted that the victim, as a professional dog trainer, intervened to prevent a conflict between animals. Meanwhile, the suspect reacted impulsively, kicking a dog belonging to the victim. Kicking a dog was not only an unjustified action, but besides indirectly directed against the animal's keeper. It was this act of aggression against the victim's animal that began the unlawful conduct of the accused and initiated the escalation of the conflict.
In SN's assessment, this component of the event was wrongly marginalised by the Court of Appeal. While the victim, according to all the evidence in the case, pushed the defendant's dog distant to prevent the escalation of aggression in dogs, the defendant's actions had no rational explanation and was simply retaliation for pushing his dog away. In fact, it is the kick of the injured dog that should be treated as the start of an unlawful attack by the accused.
SN besides criticized the way SO interpreted the video footage of the victim's cell phone. The accused responded to an effort to movie the incidental by hitting the victim and throwing her telephone out of her hand. The telephone fell to the ground, and at that time the participants were not visible. However, the video recorded, among others, the vulgar cries of the accused and the cry of his wife asking him to "stop" and "go away". The omission of this evidence has grossly infringed the rule of free assessment of evidence and Article 410 of the NCP. According to the SN, the explanation of specified evidence should take into account the motivation of the individual making the provision. In this case, she was clearly agitated by the victim, who filmed a hasty departure from the scene of the defendant's incident, while presenting her version of the incident. The court stated: ‘What reason would it have for specified conduct, if not a sense of harm and a desire to establish the image of the perpetrator?’
The SO conviction was dropped, and the case will return to re-examination.
Comment
The ultimate Court has unequivocally concluded that a physical attack on an animal accompanying a man, especially erstwhile it is under the direct care of the owner, may besides be qualified as aggression against that person. This does not only violate animal protection standards but besides undermines the safety of their guardians. In this context, kicking a dog can be seen as an act initiating a physical conflict.
The ultimate Court besides pointed out the importance of evaluating the evidence from the recording of the cell telephone motivation of the recording person. In this peculiar case, the SN pointed out that the victim was "clearly agitated" and that her recording was utilized to preserve the image of the perpetrator. specified motivation does not undermine the evidentiary value, but strengthens it, due to the fact that it is typical of the injured person, acting in the reflex of self-defense of evidence, alternatively than the desire to stage.
Judgment of the ultimate Court of 23.4.2025, III KK 179/25, Legalis
