The justice saw the deficiency of blame

obywatele.news 2 years ago

On Thursday 30 March 2023, a gathering was held in the Warsaw territory Court on the complaint of Agnieszka Dzikowski to dismiss proceedings due to statute of limitations.

Agnieszka and Tadeusz Jakrzewski, Andrzej Kowalski and Aneta Świrydo faced a mid-town court on the grounds of a police request, which made them charged with interfering with the independency March in 2019 and with refusing to identify [Article 52 par. 2 pt. 4 sq., Article 52 par. 3 pt. 2 sq., Article 52 par. 3 pt. 3 sq., Article 52 par. 2 pt. 1 sq., Article 65 par. 2 in conjunction with Article 65 par. 1 sq.].

According to police, the people blamed on 11 November 2019 stood at the de Gaulle Roundabout, preventing the participants from walking.

Some of the Polish citizens were then standing on a roundabout with a large banner with the inscription CONSTITUTION. That was adequate reason, according to the police, to remove them from the roundabout and the basis for legitimacy. They had different opinions and defended their position in court.


11 November 2019. Polish citizens organized a peaceful picket at the de Gaulle roundabout, photograph by Catherine Pierchchała


It's been 3 years, so the court dropped the case due to statute of limitations.

Agnieszka refused to agree with specified a ruling of the court, as the police's request incorrectly stated that she was interfering with the picketing with the CONSTITUTION's banner. Yes, she was in the vicinity of the Roundabout de Gaulle, but the police cordon did not pass her to the Roundabout itself. She was standing at Nowy Świat Street, only erstwhile the picketers were forcibly lifted off the march route, she joined her friends to see how fit they were and what happened to them. It was disturbing that they were being held in the cordon. There she was identified, and then the police filed charges against her, as we described above.

In a situation of lying on the part of the police or gross police error, Agnieszka felt that she would request acquittal. She did not agree with the situation in which the police put false, unverified charges, people – including her – are dragged through courts for 3 years and the substance is statute of limitations.

The protector of Agnieszka Dzikowski, adw. Aleksandra Adamiak from the Chancellery of Jack Dubois, she complained about this decision of the Midtown Court. At the gathering of the substitute patron Adamiak, Agnieszka's lawyer was Counselor Michał ZacharskiWho gave the court the right to regret.

The Court of First Instance issued a decision on the grounds that:

– The court of First Instance acted incorrectly by waiving the proceedings, due to the fact that at the time of redemption, the limitation period had not yet expired. I won't say 46 days that extended the statute of limitations due to the covid pandemic. However, 3 months have passed since then, so the additional 46 (covid) days were precisely 27 December 2022. So the proceedings have already been closed.

– The court of First Instance besides made substantive errors, due to the fact that the evidence did not indicate at any point that Agnieszka Dzikowska committed the alleged acts. The witness on the part of the prosecution has not testified to anything that proves the blame. The accused, on the another hand, provided reliable explanations, and her presence outside the de Gaulle roundabout was documented on the presented recordings from the event.

In this situation, the territory Court saw the deficiency of guilt of Agnieszka Dzikowski, but the court examining the complaint cannot acquit the grieving 1 due to the fact that he did not consider the appeal but the complaint. This is so a separate procedure. For akin reasons, the court cannot re-examine the infringement proceedings.

Thus, the justice of the Danuta Grunwald territory Court decided to change the basis for the redemption of the Midtown Court. It has so terminated the procedure pursuant to Article 5(1)(1) of the Code of Conduct in criminal matters, which states that:

  1. the act has not been committed or there is no adequate evidence to justify its suspicion.
Read Entire Article