What do you think?
Judge Wojciech Więczewski: – From the very beginning I told you that I wanted the conviction to be subjected to an instituency review. But this did not happen due to the fact that the president applied the law of grace, or fundamentally an act of individual abolition.
Is it actual that president Andrzej Duda, pardoning Kamiński and Wąsik, did not really know the case file?
Andrzej Duda could not know the file due to the fact that they were in court. Minister Andrzej Dera initially claimed that the president had read these documents, which was not possible. Only as a consequence of the questions of journalists did he admit that Mr Andrzej Duda read "an explicit part of the justification of the judgment" and appeals of defenders. Only that. This is...
... ignorance?
I'm not gonna justice that. There's quite a few lies in this case. Mr. President's taking my name, saying the conviction is for any political order. I think I'm 1 of the most x-rayed people in this country. In those 8 years they have not been able to prove to me that there was "some order" that I had "some contacts with politicians."
Second case: the conviction was placed in a three-man lineup. It ruled 3 professional judges, so it was not Więciewski who sentenced the Kamiński and Wąsik masters, but the three-member professional composition of the territory Court for Warsaw-Śródmieście, without a separate sentence. The verdict was unanimous.
But on all occasion, it was Czuliewski who was listed as the justice who sentenced Kamiński and Wąsik. And it was you, the judge, who had the consequences.
Minister Ziobro erstwhile claimed that I would invoke a three-man professional arrangement due to the fact that "I want to blur my responsibility." I don't want to usage besides many words. possibly that's how the minister works. I mean, I know from the cases that Mr. Ziobro has always tried to blur his responsibility.
In this peculiar case, I am saying what the reality was. The conviction was placed in a three-man lineup.
Do you have a feeling that the state of law has won the Law and Justice?
Absolutely not.
Why?
Mr Kamiński and Wąsik, in accordance with the CBA Act, had to be apolitical and could not be politicians at the time erstwhile they served. Therefore, how can we say that they are political prisoners? This implies, of course, another consequences, due to the fact that if you go towards politics, you can ask the question: did they make decisions with a certain attitude erstwhile performing their pre-defined functions.
Many people present forget what was at the heart of the matter. They say Kamiński and Wąsik fought corruption.
Let the public have an opinion based on what I say. This is about events from the turn of November and December 2006. There is simply a gentleman walking around Wrocław who claims to have specified influence that he is able to "roll" all ground in Poland. I'm certain no 1 would have taken this seriously if it wasn't for this man who worked on the dialog Phone, and the authorities of this company were told there were any irregularities in the tenders. They thought there was corruption in the tenders.
One of the CEOs of this company knew Mr. Mariusz Kamiński, called and said that this was the case. For over 2 weeks, nothing happens. Then, gentlemen from Telefonia dialog – president and Vice president – go to Mr Adam Lipiński. They're at his home after a loud publication of "Gazeta Wyborcza" about working for sex in Self-defense.
When they say there is simply a suspicion, not only about the tenders, but besides about the "rolling off", Mr Lipinski grabs the phone, I don't remember whether he calls Kamiński or Wąsik. And attention – he talks about this situation. On the same day, gentlemen are already gathering and the full device is moving.
If the CBA wanted to fight corruption so badly, why didn't they respond right away? Let's not make a fake image. The individual who in the Ministry of Agriculture was liable for the "roll-off", that is, Deputy Minister Henryk Kowalczyk, was the only 1 who had no operational control, in this case it can be brought to the wire.
These are the 2 most striking cases that illustrate what actually this "fight against corruption" looked like. The crime was created, and then it was examined whether corruption truly was.
If we based on what CBA had at the time, we had to deal with paid protection. There was no request for peculiar surgery. She's expected to figure out who's going to fall into a trap. It can be said that it was a kind of alleged integrity test, which is unacceptable under the law. Still.
What precisely was the crime of Kamiński and Wąsik?
On the fact that they did not urge to check whether the signal about alleged corruption was real, and yet they started a peculiar operation that was intended to bring about the asset benefit. In this respect, they failed to fulfil their obligations.
Where'd they go over the clearance? They recommended that the alleged legalisation papers be produced and that these papers be put into circulation, which in that state was unacceptable.
Following the territory court – I omit the question of the amount of these wiretaps – it was the undercover officer who was expected to carry out this peculiar operation who recorded conversations in places that were not public, and so specified registration required the court's consent. That's as short as possible.
Was there anything in the deposition that amazed you the most?
I can talk about it on average, due to the fact that about 75% are classified materials.
Is president Andrzej Duda admitting his mistake by taking the procedure of reparation?
The president has now chosen another mode to apply the law of grace. It is hard to say how to treat it, due to the fact that after the final judgement of 20 December 2023, the president can at any time exercise Article 139 of the Constitution and its right of grace. He doesn't gotta affect the lawyer General in this trial.
Why would he go with this procedure if he could usage the law of grace? Is he doing this so that Minister Bodnar can transfer the work of releasing Kamiński and Wąsik from prison for the duration of this procedure?
I'll say it again. The president may at any time exercise his right of grace under the Constitution. I don't want to dispute why he's acting like this.
In a conversation with the writer "Gazeta Wyborcza" you said that if the conviction of Kamiński and Wąsik is final, the grace of November 2015 will enter into force.
It's complicated. While the judgement of the Warsaw territory Court would be specified that it maintains the judgement of the Court of First Instance, specified explanation could be accepted. Here we have a small, but inactive a change in the description of the action – it is once. A 2 – simplification of penalties and penalties, in 1 case 1/3 and in the another half.
So the president would gotta pardon them again and admit his mistake?
I'm not going to advise the president. But there are 2 options: it can correct the decision to apply the law of grace or issue a fresh resolution to pardon. It would mention to the judgement of the territory Court in Warsaw.
Are you satisfied?
I felt satisfied with my decision. In the main reasons the territory Court in Warsaw praised the First Instance Court. I'm telling us due to the fact that I'm going back to that three-man lineup. And he commended that the proceedings were conducted fairly, with all the guarantees. That's it. That's it.
It took 9 years to wait.
But you could say I've waited. When, in 2016, 1 year after the judgement of Kamiński and Wąsik, the territory Court in Warsaw, issued a decision repealing and waiving proceedings in connection with the application of the law of grace, it was like I said: I felt a deep deficiency of satisfaction. due to the fact that I wanted, like any man, that the results or evaluation of his work would be subject to control. At the time, from the territory Court, it was burying your head in the sand.
Did this case truly affect your life?
It wasn't the most crucial thing in my life.
The hardest?
Neither.
What was the hardest part?
Case with Puławy – alleged poisoning of the kid by the parent of amphetamines. There's been an acquittal. Next: collapse of the circus tent, where there were nearly 200 victims. Another: the organization of a flight to Smolensk or a case where the midwife was convicted of administering a cytotec medicine to the child's mother, which was intended to accelerate the delivery, but led to foetal damage. I could trade for so long. The alleged circumstantial cases were more crucial than 2 gentlemen who, they say, fought corruption.
But 4 years after the conviction of Kamiński and Wąsik, you filed for office.
Let me put it another way: the justice should be best placed in office. You don't become a justice to make a career, to walk the media, just to get the best justice you can.
From the very beginning, I said that the conviction that falls is the consequence of 3 things: evidence, regulations and conscience. And I'll say plainly: even if the evidence and regulations are obvious, then the conscience may not let a conviction.
Have you always been like this?
I had 1 situation where my conscience wouldn't let me convict. The rules were obvious, but the evidence wasn't. It triggered the conscience.
And the question of submitting an office – erstwhile Poland ceases to be a law-abiding state, it makes no sense for me to service as a judge. I am incapable to warrant to the parties where this will go. I'm talking about changes in the laws.
I can't believe it was specified a simple decision.
She wasn't. But the regulation of law has decided. I realize that sounds pathetic. But it is. I'm being honest.
Isn't it that a man gets angry, that he has to quit something he loves? due to the fact that your friends said the toga was sacred to you.
There were 4 years from the court's conviction to my office.
Over the 4 years you have been the victim of a public and right-wing media attack, the Prime Minister, the government spokesman, the President, spoke of you. All the way.
When I gave this sentence, I was a justice with an 11-year stint. Things have never happened before in my life. It was, and at times it's inactive a full ride.
I just utilized a phrase like that about an external reception. If I were to go back to the profession and justice criminal cases, a policy of the Law and Justice would be affected, he would be judged reasonably by me, with all the guarantees. If he had proven guilty, he would have been convicted if he had been innocent—acquitted. The problem is that in the alleged external reception it would look different, and this in turn could violate the good of the judicial service and the image of the judiciary.
Would it be "Lączewski justice on the phone"?
Yes, "Łączewski justice on phone"; "Łączewski hates PiS". That's the only reason I let Mr. Wąsik go erstwhile he stated right before the incarceration that I was a "fanatic opponent of PiS".
I am not an opponent of the Law and Justices, but after what happened on March 30, 2015, after the judgement of Mr Kamiński et consortes, it is hard for me to apologize and go through indifferently, erstwhile Mrs Kopcińska, for example, stated that "the point is that there should be no Justice of the Linkivski". I am writing to the Prime Minister what the author meant. I didn't truly get a circumstantial answer.
The right inactive uses it. On the occasion of the Kamiński and Wąsik prisons, president Kaczyński, president and another crucial PiS officials remembered you.
President Kaczyński said that all judges who ruled in this case should be liable for criminal liability.
For 3 hours I read the conviction of Kamiński and Wąsik (he had 83 pages) and had not yet given the essential reasons for the decision, and it was already said that it was a judgement on political order.
I know that this is simply a self-play – in rule – as we are guilty, individual was involved.
But justice Tomasz Trębicki, who issued an executive decision on the arrest and prosecution of the convicts, already shares any of your fate: the right hand x-rayed him.
He's experiencing what I'm experiencing.
You were the first justice to experience hatred on specified a scale.
On specified a scale – I think so. But it was inactive a time erstwhile the judges learned that something like this could happen.
I think they've already learned, due to the fact that justice Trębicki defends e.g. Iustitia.
What started happening was a blow between the eyes. Judges weren't utilized to it that way.
This was before the deformity of justice, the hatred scandal in the Ministry of Justice.
Yes, but Igor Tuley's experienced it, too. Kamiński went out as head of the CBA, and he was roughing him up. He demanded disciplinary action, etc.
Did you resent the judges for not defending you?
After this judgement was issued, you first published a spokesman, then a territory court college passed a resolution. It was April 2015. And for that moment, they behaved well.
Judges weren't in the media at the time.
Not at all. After my sentence, I've been offered quite a few interviews. For the first time, in September or October 2015, I gave a brief interview for "Journal of Legal Newspapers". Only due to the fact that I was accused of being written besides long. Briefly, utilizing only statistics, I showed how many things I did at the time. And I've told you how to make a justification in this case, given that there are classified materials there. I couldn't take the files home, I just had to compose them at a secret firm.
But erstwhile you start publishing information from my individual life, writing stupid things, you gotta answer. That's my character. Then I wrote a letter to the National Court Register, which was inactive constitutionally charged, and I informed the president of the court that I was going to give an interview.
Because the correction expression didn't work?
No, they were besides long. Years later, erstwhile the hatred scandal broke out in 2019, I learned that 1 of the journalists, Mr Wojciech Biedron, who participated as the chief propagandist, was in excellent contacts with Mrs. small Emi. To any extent, it was funny.
I have this message where he writes to her that she's not going to compose any text present due to the fact that she has to recover from losing her trial to me. What does she say to him in response: give a signature, possibly there's something we can do.
It's a striking example of the fact that there's an organized hatred device for judges, uncomfortable prosecutors.
What's going through that darkness? We have a fresh minister of justice.
I'm quiet. prof. Bodnar is simply a wonderful man, empathetic. For now, it's besides shortly to tell me what the minister would be like. From erstwhile he was an RPO, that's respect.
Another issue. Judges appointed at the request of the neo-KRS issued any thousands of sentences. There are different ways presented by, among others, Iustitia, the Batory Foundation to heal this situation. There are besides different ways to extend it over time. There are lawyers who are proposing immediate action, cutting through this ulcer, others think that at least appearances must be preserved.
Today's amendments to the KRS Act sound good.
However, whose option would not have been accepted, it should be in the interests of citizens – citizens' legal certainty, decisions by independent and independent courts. And within a reasonable time.
Would you make the same decision present about the 2015 verdict?
Until the justice is convinced that what he's doing is right, it's not a judgment. It all depends on whether a criminal or civilian trial, but as a rule, that's what it looks like. I'd sign under a ruling that was made at first instance.
Would you file for office?
Yeah.
Were you aware that if you didn't back down, they would never stop?
Yeah.
Aren't you scared?
I'm not afraid and I wasn't afraid. What was I expected to be afraid of erstwhile they were watching me, they were officers of the Polish state, what would they want to do to me?
But a shot through the window, unscrewing the wheel – that sounds more serious.
The old days. Of course, the perpetrators have not been determined.
Don't you miss ruling?
It depends how you look at it. What I do isn't far from ruling. any barriers – with the change of the Minister of Justice – fell.
Do you have any temptation to go back to the profession?
I'm 47. I think there are inactive different possibilities ahead of me.
