Facts and proceedings
District Court in Środa Śląska, in case of a private accusation brought by K.T., by judgement of 15.7.2024, II K 340/23, he conditionally dismissed the criminal proceedings against D.S. and M.J.. for the public (in front of the nuns) to talk to the priest K.T. the harassment of minors, i.e. for specified conduct and the qualities which may have humiliated him in the public opinion and put him at hazard of losing the trust needed to execute the priestly ministry. The court of First Instance found the defendants guilty and sentenced them to imprisonment.
The appeals brought both sides.
By judgement of 23.12.2024, IV Ka 1192/24, the Wrocław territory Court amended the contested judgement and acquitted the defendants.
A private prosecutor's lawyer filed a cassation complaint. He pointed out that the appeal court had not decently referred to the key pleas of appeal and that the reasoning of the judgement did not meet the procedural requirements.
Following the examination of the alleged charges, the ultimate Court took account of the cassation and forwarded it for review in the appeal proceedings.
Position of the ultimate Court
In designation of the case, the ultimate Court referred primarily to the allegations raised in the midst of the appeal, i.e. incorrect examination of the appeal and ruling based only on fragments of evidence collected. However, the SN made an crucial remark on the margins, namely that court stressed the anticipation of reaching a settlement. At an earlier phase of the proceeding, no of the parties were curious in seeking reconciliation – initially the defendants showed a deficiency of readiness and no longer a private prosecutor took the initiative in this respect during the further phase of the proceedings. However, the ultimate Court pointed out that even after the cassation procedure stage, there was area to re-examine the parties' readiness to enter into settlement talks. In the reality of this matter, the dynamics of the parties' attitude changed, which in itself indicates that the anticipation of concluding a settlement should not be assessed once.
The ultimate Court's emphasis on the function of the settlement falls within the broader trend of strengthening consensus elements in the criminal process. The settlement – especially in private prosecution cases – serves not only as a procedural but besides as a social one, allowing a solution to be developed that is more tailored to the needs of the parties than a classical judgement that settles the dispute in a zero-one way.
The conclusion of a settlement frequently reduces tensions, restores balance between the parties and the real ending of the conflict, not just its formal resolution. For the court, this means relief and shortening of proceedings, and for the parties a faster, little stressful and more predictable solution. The anticipation of reconciliation is not simply an addition to criminal proceedings, but a component of its humanistic dimension. In private cases, the settlement brings the process closer to the thought of repairing harm and restoring social ties, which is better suited to the objectives of corrective justice than the repression itself.
The function of the settlement is peculiarly crucial in conflicts involving the local community. In specified cases, a judicial judgement may formally end the dispute, but not necessarily repair inter-Neighbourly relations or reconstruct assurance in the environment. The settlement, on the another hand, gives the parties the chance to scope an agreement that effectively relieves tensions and allows them to rebuild their relations.
Consistent reminder by courts – besides by the ultimate Court – the meaning of the settlement has an crucial educational function. It indicates to the parties that criminal law can act not only through conflict but besides through dialog and compromise. In practice, it frequently turns out to be a more satisfying and lasting solution than a judgement that seldom closes the emotional dimension of the dispute.