On the portal “To the Thing” 1 could read that the prosecutor accused Fr Michał Olszewski of money laundering in custody since Easter. The precise content of the extended allegations is presented in the Communication from the National Prosecutor's Office shortly before the European Parliament elections html, which may justify the reflection that prosecutors of the National Prosecutor's Office have decided to join the election run of their favourite party. The engagement of the National Public Prosecutor's Office in informing the public about the allegations made by Fr Olszewski was preceded by imprecise accusations, so as not to compose a consciously misleading reader with publications of journalists presently employed on TVP, and originating from the electoral paper https://drzeczy.pl/opinie/571062/x-michal-olszewski-ziobro-dabrowska-plotka-i-hejtem.html, https://drzeczy.pl/country/567951/sercanie-issued-affiliation-ws-ks-michala-olszewski.html
Content of the additional charge of money laundering
In its communication, the National Prosecutor's Office stated the content of the alleged crime: "The prosecutor accused the fishy of acting in order to thwart the uncovering of a criminal origin of funds obtained under the contract concluded by the Profeto Foundation with the Justice Fund for the construction of the Archipelag Centre in Wilanów between 2020 and 2021. These actions were to be carried out jointly and in agreement with Piotr W., the president of TISO sp. z o.o., who was then the main contractor of the abovementioned centre. The fishy led to the signing of the lease agreement for the land on which the construction of the centre was conducted, on the basis of which TISO Sp. z o.o. leased from the Assembly of the Priest of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (co-owner) part of the aforementioned properties. The second co-owner of the property was the Profeto Foundation represented by Michał O. In the performance of the above agreement (and the later annex) TISO sp. z o.o. transferred funds of a full amount of PLN 3,650,000 to the bank account of the Assembly of the Holy Heart of Jesus, which is the amount of the fishy Michael O. then transferred to the account of the Profeto Foundation, thus making it hard to establish their origin from the crime committed to the detriment of the Justice Fund..’
The defender of Fr Michał Olszewski, Mr Krzysztof Wąsowski, draws attention not only to the deficiency of any evidence justifying the suspicion of a crime, but even to the fact that the money came from the Justice Fund, not from the crime, and as a consequence, the nature of the crime of money laundering could not be fulfilled. Advocate Olszewski summarizes his assessment of allegations with rhetorical questions: "How do you wash clean money? Must be dirty money. If the money comes from the Justice Fund, how can it be dirty?"https://www.radiomarija.pl/information/ks-m-olszewski-uslyszal-two-new-claims-for-money-between-mec-k-wasowski-how-can-work-clean-money-mus-it-be- dirty-money-if-money-comes-from-fun/ .
What does Article 299 of the Criminal Code truly mean?
It is clear from the Communication from the National Prosecutor's Office that the measures, commonly referred to as dirty money, were to come from a crime, and so Fr. Michał Olszewski was charged with committing a crime, the marks of which are laid down in Article 299(1) of the Criminal Code. It is so essential to quote the wording of this provision: ‘Who means of payment, financial instruments, securities, abroad exchange, property rights or another movable or immovable property, from the benefit of committing a prohibited act accept, possess, use, transfer or export abroad, hide, execute them transfer or conversion, helps to transfer their ownership or possession, or undertakes another activities which may impede or importantly impede the identification, detection, seizure or decision of their origin or locationis subject to imprisonment from 6 months to 8 yearsIt’s okay. ”
In order to answer the question whether the actions of the National Prosecutor's Office towards Fr Olszewski and another suspects on the Justice Fund derive from the applicable law, or whether they are simply the execution of a political order and consequently constitute a violation of the law, it is essential to interpret Article 299 of the Criminal Code, taking into account the rule that no part of the provision is unnecessary (no explanation per non est) https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wok%C5%82adnia_right
Firstly, as Fr Olszewski's defender, Mr Wąsowski, pointed out, it is essential for the offence of money laundering to happen that they come from the crime. Wąsowski's opinion is not only based on the literal content of Article 299(1) of the Criminal Code, but is confirmed by representatives of Włodzimierz Wróbel and Szymon Tarapata: "The subject substance of criminal enforcement under Article 299(1) shall be means of payment, financial instruments, securities, abroad exchange values, property rights and movable or immovable property derived from the benefit of an act prohibited by the perpetrator himself or by any another person. ... The assets referred to in Article 299(1) are to derive from the benefits of a prohibited act” [Wróbel Włodzimierz (ed.), Zoll Andrew (ed.), Criminal Code. The peculiar part. Volume III. Commentary on Art. 278-363 k.k., Issue V Published: WKP 2022]. The necessity for the prosecutor to prove, specifically, from which the prohibited act derives "dirty money" is besides confirmed in the ultimate Court judgement of 4 October 2011, No. III KK 28/11, in which the message of reasons states: ‘The legislator so clearly points out that the origin of the assets constituting the "dirty money" is to be derived from the conduct which carries out the characteristics of a peculiar kind of criminal offence. Therefore, it is not adequate to establish that certain property values originate from any illegal activity or from an undisclosed or "illegal" origin for the intent of the performance of the crime. It is besides not adequate in this respect to indicate that the property benefit comes from criminal activity, some, more closely defined criminal activity or a certain group of crimes (e.g. crimes against property or taxation fraud) without specifying what circumstantial kind of crime to go aboutand.’ https://www.sn.pl/sites/a jurisprudence/Resolution1/III%20KK%2028-11.pdf Of course, in the communication of the National Prosecutor's Office, with the content indicated by the weekly magazine “To the Thing”, we will not find a definition of the kind of prohibited act unless we presume that it is simply a crime to get any subsidy from the state budget from the church entity.
The Wąsowski remark that it is not possible to commit a crime of money laundering erstwhile they do not come from the crime is confirmed not only in the literal content of the recipe, but besides in the available comment on the Criminal Code and the ultimate Court case law.
It is clear from the Communication of the National Prosecutor's Office that its prosecutors recognized the origin of the assets from an apriority-barred act – the Communication does not say what specifically prohibited measures are to come from.
Further explanation of Article 299(1) of the Criminal Code, W. W. Wróbel and Sz. The situation indicates that the specified transfer (the statutory word ‘transfer’) is not adequate to commit a money laundering offence. In order for this crime to arise, it is essential to have the effect of thwarting or importantly hindering the declaration of criminal origin of the benefit: "The Court of Appeal in Katowice stressed that «to accept work for the offence of money laundering all implementing acts referred to in Article 299(1) k.k.. in this description, together with the general concept of ‘other activities’, which is specified after the return of ‘or’, and not only the latter, it must be combined with the effect of thwarting or importantly hindering the declaration of criminal origin of the benefits straight or indirectly linked to the performance of the prohibited act or the place of their placement, detection, seizure or decision of their forfeiture” (SA judgement in Katowice of 30 January 2014, II AKa 278/13, KZS 2014/4 item 71). [Wróbel Włodzimierz (ed.), Zoll Andrzej (ed.), Criminal Code. The peculiar part. Volume III. Commentary on Art. 278-363 k.k., Issue V Published: WKP 2022]. The judgement of the Court of Appeal in Katowice is available online: https://orzenia.katowice.sa.gov.pl/content/$N/151500000001006_II_AKa_000278_2013_Uz_2014-01-30_001
Returning to the description of the crime proposed by the National Prosecutor's Office (quoted "In implementation of the above-mentioned agreement (and the later annex) TISO sp. z o.o. transferred funds of a full amount of PLN 3,650,000 to the bank account of the Assembly of the Holy Heart of Jesus, which is the amount of the fishy Michael O. then transferred to the account of the Profeto Foundation, thus making it hard to establish their origin from the crime committed to the detriment of the Justice Fund.) there is considerable uncertainty that, as a way of transferring money between 2 bank accounts, it would have the effect of thwarting or importantly hindering the uncovering that these measures originate from a crime.
If the subsidy from the Justice Fund was transferred to a bank account belonging to the Profeto Foundation, the detection of which accounts were subsequently transferred should not constitute a crucial obstacle to the prosecution, and even more so should not thwart this statement.
Nor does it appear from the declaration of the National Prosecutor's Office that any of the another paragraphs of Article 299 of the Criminal Code should be infringed. This provision is made up of 9 paragraphs, but Paragraph 2 cannot apply due to the fact that it concerns only employees of banks and financial institutions, Paragraphs 3 and 4 have been repealed and cannot constitute the basis of anyone's criminal liability, Paragraphs 5 and 6 supply for a more severe punishment to be imposed on a kind qualified for the intent of acting in agreement with another individual and achieving a crucial financial benefit, Paragraph 6a introduces the criminality of preparing for the offence of money laundering, and Paragraph 7 provides for the compulsory forfeiture of items derived from a crime.
Marek Bojarski in the manual entitled "Serial Penal Law: General and peculiar Part" Warsaw 2017 pp. 156-157 states the apparent fact that it is not possible to carry out the marks of a prohibited act threatened by a stricter punishment (so-called qualified) without fulfilling all the characteristics of the basic type: "Among the various divisions of crime, 1 of the more crucial ones seems to be the division into basic and modified types, namely privileged and qualified. The question arises as to how the characteristics of 1 group or another differ. Well, the constitutive features are a constant component in the description of prohibited behavior, It is impossible to destruct from this description without going below a certain ceiling to identify what is actually prohibited. It is easy to note that - regardless of whether we are dealing with a alleged average theft, done with a burglary or involving a thing of considerable value - it cannot be defined, without utilizing a mark describing a verb act as a "collection of another's thing." (...) lack of performance of the characteristics of the basic kind excludes prohibited act, the deficiency of performance of the characteristics of the kind of modifying the prohibited act does not exclude, but only affects its milder or stricter qualification.’ Likewise, it is not possible to commit a execution for a peculiar cruelty without fulfilling all the marks of the murder, nor to commit a crime of money laundering in agreement with another individual or concerning the possession of crucial value, the subject of which would not be money from a prohibited act. The existence of 2 paragraphs of Article 299 of the Criminal Code, which specify the characteristics of the types of qualified (i.e. more severe punishment) does not release the prosecutor from the necessity to show all the characteristics of the basic act, including those not mentioned by Mr Wąsowski.
The allegation is intended only to justify the extension of the provisional arrest
After reading this provision, as well as the available comments, it is impossible to defy the impression that the prosecutor who charged Fr Olszewski with money laundering omitted the statutory characteristics of the crime, as he was curious in matching a crime that would be punishable by a punishment of 6 months to 8 years imprisonment, and in qualified types (acting in consultation with others, achieving a crucial asset benefit) from a year to 10 years.
Why would specified a threat be of interest to the prosecutor? The answer is found in Article 258(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states: ‘If the suspect is accused of having committed a criminal offence or an offence punishable by a conviction of imprisonment of at least 8 years, or if the court of First Instance has sentenced him to imprisonment of no little than 3 years, the request for a temporary arrest in order to safe the correct course of proceedings may be justified by a serious penalty.“ According to the commentary on Article 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Katarzyna Dudka: “This condition is independent and so independent of the conditions of Paragraph 1” [Dudka Catherine (ed.), Code of Criminal Procedure. Commentary, Issue III Published: WKP 2023) However, the defender should not be helpless to present the charge of committing a criminal offence of at least 8 years imprisonment because: ‘If, in fact, a criminal offence or an offence punishable by a custodial conviction of at least 8 years were adequate to apply a pre-trial arrest, the phrase ‘the request to apply a pre-trial arrest to safeguard the appropriate course of proceedings may be justified by a criminal offence’ would be unnecessary, as the preceding content would be sufficient. In view of the explanation of this phrase, it cannot be overlooked that it refers to “a threatening punishment” alternatively than “a threat of punishment”. The second word in doctrine and judicature is widely regarded as a synonym for the "statutory danger", i.e. the danger provided for in the provision defining the crime in question. (...) The usage of another words, i.e. “a threatening punishment”, further indicates that the meaning of this phrase is different, due to the fact that without reasonable reasons, it should not be attributed to different terms of the same meaning; it is assumed that there are no synonyms in the legal language. If the phrase ‘punishment risk’ utilized at the beginning of the provision under consideration means a punishment provided for in the sanction of a circumstantial provision, the word “dangerous punishment” contained in its final passage indicates that it is simply a punishment which can be expected for the perpetrator concerned (R.A. Stefański, Glosa to the order of the SN of 19.11.1996, IV KZ 119/96, OS 1997/4 pp. 176-178). [R. A Stefaan Code of Criminal Procedure. Volume II. Commentary on Art. 167-296 under ed. R. A. Stefański and S. Zablocki – Art. 258).
Summarizing R. A Stefański's view, Fr Olszewski's self-imposed charge of committing a criminal offence punishable by 8 years imprisonment, or even higher, cannot constitute a self-indulgence in the application of provisional arrest. In order for the provisional arrest to be lawful, the prosecutor should besides show that there is simply a advanced likelihood of committing the crime, and that his circumstances justify the presumption that Fr Olszewski will receive the highest possible punishment for the alleged act, and so there are no desired mitigating and only aggravating circumstances. The court's mention to the advanced statutory threat of punishment will so constitute a violation of Article 258(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Nor can it be lost sight of the content of Article 249(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that the condition for preventive measures and, among them, temporary arrests, is the consequence of the accumulated evidence of a advanced likelihood that the suspect committed the crime. If, therefore, the description of the criminal offence justifying the application for provisional arrest shows that the offence committed by the accused was not a criminal offence, the provisional arrest cannot be applied.
In another words, the prosecutor knows very well that in the case of Fr Olszewski there are no grounds for the application of the provisional arrest provided for in Article 258(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (reasonable fear of escape, especially erstwhile the identity of the accused cannot be established or he has no permanent place of residence in Poland), nor in Article 258(1)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (reasoned concern that the accused will be urged to submit false statements or otherwise obstruct criminal proceedings). no of the evidence gathered indicates that there were legal grounds for provisional arrest, which led the prosecutor to change the legal qualification of the act in order to benefit from the presumption of the request for provisional arrest resulting from a advanced threat of imprisonment.
Misqualified act to extend mining detention as a common law enforcement practice
The fact that law enforcement authorities usage the legal qualification of an act to illegally get an extension of an interim arrest in courts is widely known.
On the problem of opportunistic arrest of suspects in criminal proceedings, the authors of book and online publications spoke about the charge of participation in an organized criminal group (an analogous advanced threat of imprisonment). Monika Hensler wrote: ‘It should be noted that making specified an allegation in practice is tantamount to bringing an application to the court for interim detention, given the existence of a legitimate fear of mating and excludes from the public prosecutor the request to further justify the application of the strictest preventive measure. For this reason, there is simply a hazard of abuse by law enforcement authorities of making a suspected charge under Article 258 k.k., even if it is not entirely apparent from the evidence collected that the perpetrator has exercised his conduct as a sign of this prohibited act‘’[https://www.filipiakbabicz.com/temporary-abuse/use-temporary-abuse-in-contribution-in-organised-crime group/ ]
Piotr Cardas in “The problem of temporary arrest against the current requirements of explanation and practice. Reflections on the applicable application of the provisions on temporary arrest." Warsaw 2024 wrote further: “It should be added that, in practice, the rule laid down in Article 258(2) of the NCP is comparatively frequently applied, together with the qualification of the alleged act under Article 258 of the NCC with the allegation of committing a criminal offence, to participate in an organised group aimed at committing taxation offences or offences. This involves the presumption that the alleged fears of mating are widely accepted in the case law. This causes a temporary arrest to be applied on the basis of 2 presumptions, in rule preventing the conduct of an anti-proof. It is clear that specified an knowing of the above circumstances in the case-law is not essential to ‘(...) supply concrete evidence which would support them to act as an unlawful obstacle to proceedings, which is usually required in accordance with Article 258(1)(2) of the NCP’. The process described above is not hypothetical. Anyone who has come into contact with the practice of applying the law, without the slightest difficulty, will mention a number of examples from his own reflection (participating) erstwhile the temporary arrest was applied in specified a arrangement with a laconic, standard, repainted without any more reflection on the justification. However, even the allegation (in view of the advanced likelihood of committing a crime) of the presumption of innocence and the indication that specified claims are based on the allegation of participation in an organised criminal group aimed at committing taxation offences or crimes, does not in any way prejudge the simultaneous rebuttal of the presumption of non-hazard on the part of the fishy (the accused) of violating certain goods in the futureIt’s okay. ”
The link between the inadequate allegation and the request to extend the period of provisional arrest in this peculiar case is besides noted by the defender Fr Olszewski: "The only explanation why the prosecution so promotes the charge is that by 10 June, the prosecutor must apply if he wishes to request an extension of the interim arrest for priest Michał Olszewski.“ https://www.radiomarija.pl/information/ks-m-olszewski-uslyszal-two-new-claims-for-money-between-mec-k-wasowski-how-can-work-clean-money-mus-it-be- dirty-money-if-money-comes-from-fun/ . The above-mentioned publications indicate that Mr Wąsowski's assessment is not simply a line of defence or an effort to mislead the public, but is based on cognition of law enforcement practice in another cases.
Of course, the defender of Fr Olszewski and the priest himself, in accordance with Article 252 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is entitled to a complaint against the decision on the preventive measure. However, Article 252(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a complaint against a decision on provisional arrest shall be heard by the court no later than 7 days after the court has been referred with the essential files. Notwithstanding the anticipation of challenging the decision to extend the provisional arrest, a precautionary measurement should be immediately repealed if the reasons for its application, as provided for in Article 253(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cease to exist.
So much for theory. In practice, the members of the Association “Iustitia”, which was referred to by Polish Radio as highly politicized https://polskieradio24.pl/Article/3253259,curiosal-word-in-gdansk-fellow-iustitii-nakazal-europosel-pis-apologize-pomaske they are highly fortunate in the political draws. Article 47a of the Law on the strategy of Universal Courts states that cases are assigned to judges at random, but the accuracy of the draws raised doubts even on the left-wing Citizens' Network Watchdog https://iecobywatelska.pl/overcome-in-control-of-the-drawing-judge-to-cases/
Major Lute's instructions to justice (!) Soplica inactive remain:
‘– And did he read the Judge's yellow book?
– What is this?
A book worth more than your rights and statutes. And in it all the time: noose, Siberia, flogging. This is the book of war laws. Known throughout Lithuania. That's why you're going to go to Sibir for this kind of trouble.
– I'll appeal to the governor.
– And appeal wherever you want. Even the Emperor. You know that the emperor, erstwhile he approves these orders, is sometimes so gracious that he doubles the penalty. And I'm certain I'll find a small bump on you too.
What can we do about it?
Solidarni 2010 on their website called for sending letters to Fr Michał Olszewski and participating in prayer at the Warsaw – Służewiec Investigative Arrest in Warsaw https://solidarni2010.pl/44030-we are-solidarni-z-ksiedzem-olshevsky-do-prayer-pod-arrest-send-list.html?PHPSESSID=e16644494d5b4ae505268a1089cc8e17 A akin action 2 days later was organised by Gazeta Polska regular https://gpeveryday.pl/823325-wesfaj-ks-olszewski-eslip-list.html
Unless you can, sitting behind the keyboard of the computer to measure the effectiveness of writing letters, the more after almost 3 months after its announcement (do we inactive remember Fr Olszewski?), it seems apparent that Fr Olszewski himself and his defender mets. Wąsowicz is convinced of the request to remind about the substance and to exert media force html
Regardless of the merits of the charges against Fr Olszewski, the court will decide his fate. It is not known whether the justice in the case will be, as in the case of a temporary arrest of a clergyman, justice Piotr Kluz, erstwhile Deputy Minister of the Government of Donald Tusk, against the impartiality of which there were so far-reaching doubts that journalists had sent an open letter on his exclusion from the case. https://drzeczy.pl/country/580332/list-journalists-in-defence-ks-michala-olszewski.html justice Piotr Kluz did not take advantage of the anticipation of excluding himself from the case under Article 41(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to the existence of circumstances giving emergence to reasonable uncertainty as to its impartiality.
Participation of a social organisation in criminal proceedings
Article 90(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows a social organisation to declare its participation in proceedings pending before a court if there is simply a request to defend the social interest or individual interest covered by its statutory tasks, in peculiar the protection of freedom and human rights. The legislator decided that a social organisation could only take part in the pending judicial proceedings, and thus after the completion of the preparatory proceedings (at this phase is the case of Fr Olszewski) and bringing the indictment to the court. Krzysztof Eichstedt states: "The literal explanation of the said provision clearly indicates that a social organisation through its typical may act only in the phase of legal proceedings. Its presence is not foreseen at an earlier stage, i.e. in the preparatory phase.” [K. Eichstedt in: Świecki Dariusz (ed.), Code of Criminal Procedure. Comment. Volume I. Articles 1–424, Issue VII Published: WKP 202]. In a comment to Article 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ryszard Stefański states that: "There is no obstacle to the submission of participation already in the course of the investigation, which is subject to judicial review after the indictment has been received" [Stefański Ryszard A. (ed.), Zabłocki Stanisław (ed.), Code of Criminal Procedure. Volume I. Commentary on Articles 1-166 Published: WKP 2017], however, the accession of the social organization to the criminal trial serves mainly to enable its representatives to express their views on the case being pending and the anticipation to attend trials, which is not possible at the phase of the preparatory proceedings. Therefore, the only effect of the application by a social organisation (e.g. foundation, association) of participation before the completion of the preparatory procedure could be to exert force on the prosecutor, since until the indictment is brought to court, the social organisation cannot carry out any procedural action.
The application for participation in judicial proceedings should be carefully prepared, it is the work of the social organisation to indicate the social or individual interest covered by the statutory tasks of that organisation and the typical to represent the social organisation in the proceedings. The mandatory annexes to the notification of participation in criminal proceedings are a copy of the statutes of the organisation (from which it should appear that its statutory nonsubjective is the social or individual interest to be pursued in the proceedings and a written authorisation for the typical of the organisation to represent it in the proceedings.
The request for careful preparation of the notification of the public organisation's participation in the proceedings is justified by the fact that the decision to refuse participation in the proceedings is not enforceable, as confirmed by Krzysztof Eichaedt: ‘Neither the court’s decision to let a social organisation to participate in judicial proceedings nor a negative decision shall be challenged.’ [St. Darius (ed.), Code of Criminal Procedure. Comment. Volume I. Articles 1–424, Issue VII Published: WKP 202]. In the event that the court considers that a social organisation, in its field of action, has no social interest or individual interest to be protected in the proceedings, it is not possible to argue with that view of the court by bringing an appeal. However, this does not preclude the submission of a request for participation in proceedings by another organisation which, for its statutory purposes, has the explicitly mentioned protection of freedom and human rights.
Sand whip – guaranteeing a trustworthy individual
When we read the biography of St Maximilian, we can find mention of 20 monks from Niepokalanów who offered themselves as hostages for his release: “On 28 May Fr Kolbe was transported from Pawiak to Oświęcim. Earlier in late February, 20 fellow brothers sacrificed themselves for hostages in exchange for the release of a future saint. It was impossible to reverse destiny. The crown of martyrdom was written for him.” [https://stophistory.pl/pa2/tematy/kosciol/94501, Knight-Indefinite.html] The church worships as a blessed sister Maria Stella with companions, who sacrificed themselves for 120 residents of Novgorod during the German business and suffered death on August 1, 1943. [https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_m%C4%99chennic_z_Noogr%C3%B3dka ]
Modernity, and even so the more binding Code of Criminal Procedure does not require specified a large sacrifice from us.
The temporary arrest is evidently not the only preventive measurement provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The another preventive measures are: property guarantee, social warrant (employer, school manager to whom he is accused of being a student or a student, a social organisation to which he is accused a member, a squad in which the accused learns or works) and the warrant of a trustworthy person. Unfortunately, as Konrad Mielczarek notes: “The condition for any of the designated entities to supply a warrant is that the suspect belongs to them, which is justified by the request to guarantee a real influence on his behaviour.” [K. Mielczarek in: Criminal law for judges, prosecutors, defenders and attorneys Warszawa 2024] Theoretically, a social organization specified as a foundation or an association could adopt a resolution to accept members of Fr Olszewski or any another political prisoner, and then after obtaining his consent (it is hard to imagine that the association would forcibly accept his members, for example Donald Tusk), adopt another resolution to grant the guarantee. However, this practice could not be met with the designation of the bailout prosecutor, as K. Mielczarek points out: “SIt is pointed out that the guaranteeing collective cannot be casual and occasional” [K. Mielczarek in: Criminal law for judges, prosecutors, defenders and attorneys Warszawa 2024].
On the another hand, there are no obstacles to the granting of guarantees for Fr Olszewski, which is allowed by Article 272 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Although the concept of a trustworthy individual is imprecise, it seems apparent that an assessment of this quality should be carried out on the basis of nonsubjective criteria. K. Mielczarek comments: "With the initiative comes a individual who wants to vouch for the accused. The warrant may be granted only by an adult natural person. A trustworthy individual is undoubtedly a individual who, in a general sense (objectively) enjoys the trust of at least the local community, e.g. the chief, councillor, parish priest, teacher, doctor, retired police officer.” [K. Mielczarek in: Criminal law for judges, prosecutors, defenders and attorneys Warszawa 2024]. individual warrant for arrested Bartłomiej Misiewicz was given by Fr Tadeusz Rydzyk https://www.radiomarija.pl/information/relationship-personal-director-radia-maryja-ws-bartlomieja-misiewicza/
Although my cognition may be incomplete, I did not read that, for Fr Michał Olszewski, any of the parliamentarians or right-wing journalists who had previously expressed outrage at the motion for temporary arrest. Members of the largest opposition organization do not line up in front of the Warsaw – Służewiec Investigative Arrest to conduct parliamentary intervention as in the case of Mariusz Kamiński https://www.pap.pl/ up-to-dates/pas-deputies-talked-to-director-arrest-investigator-quired-about-conditions-stay The answer to the question of whether they would intervene if we were wrongfully in detention seems, unfortunately, as apparent as the question of the effectiveness of the complaint on the determination of temporary arrest in modern Poland.
B.L.
