The Regional Court in Warsaw has overturned the prosecution’s decision to discontinue an investigation into threats and insults directed at several journalists from TV Republika and Gazeta Polska. In its justification, the court pointed to serious shortcomings in the preparatory proceedings and ordered the case to be reopened.
The proceedings concern, among other things, criminal threats and insults made via the internet and social media platforms. The injured parties include Tomasz Sakiewicz, Danuta Holecka, Michał Rachoń, and Tomasz Duklanowski. According to the court, investigators failed to carry out all necessary procedural steps and nevertheless decided to discontinue the investigation.
The court’s strongest criticism concerned the manner in which the threats themselves had been assessed. Prosecutors had previously concluded that the online posts were primarily emotional in nature and constituted hate speech rather than genuine criminal threats. The court completely rejected that approach. In its reasoning, it stated that some of the messages had been directed specifically at identifiable individuals, contained aggressive wording, and even included threats of death or physical assault. According to the court, it could not simply be assumed in advance that such statements did not create a genuine sense of danger.
“It is therefore difficult to accept, or even understand, the position of the prosecutor, who considered posts such as: ‘until every one of you drops dead’; ‘when you are dying, which is what I wish for you, do not dare call an ambulance or use medical equipment. You have no right to that (…)’; ‘I advise you to get the hell out of the television station, because soon you’ll be in prison too, remember my words (…)’; ‘Don’t forget that you may pay for your lies,’ followed by ‘Go out into the street and start spewing your lies there, and you’ll see, you bitch, how quickly you’ll have to run for your life’; ‘I think I’m about to beat the hell out of him, when he gets his first convulsions I’ll shove his head into the paving stones (…)’ as ‘not containing categorical, firm, or unequivocal statements that could be interpreted as threats,’” the court stated in its justification.
“An unacceptable attitude”
The court also directly criticized the prosecution’s conduct:
“The Court wishes to emphasize in the strongest terms that the attitude of the public prosecutor, consisting of leniency, a kind of ‘turning a blind eye,’ or silent acceptance of such behavior, is entirely unacceptable. Regardless of one’s views or declared support for one political side or another, there is no place in the Polish legal order for conduct violating the rights of others, insulting other individuals, or suppressing the rights of others.”
“The consequences of a lack of decisive action by authorities responsible for identifying perpetrators, clarifying the circumstances of cases, and gathering evidence, as reality demonstrates, can be tragic.”
“The Court is obliged to remind…”
The court also criticized the prosecution’s argument that the messages should be viewed merely as “criticism.”
“This assessment cannot be altered by the fact that the injured parties are public figures and therefore, in the prosecutor’s view, should somehow expect and be prepared for criticism from others. Such ‘criticism,’ however, cannot exceed the limits established by law. The Court is therefore obliged to remind the public prosecutor that the measure of a law-abiding state is not its favorable attitude toward the expectations of those currently in power, nor its favor toward views expressed publicly by one side or another. The measure of a law-abiding state is its treatment of citizens, and the protection and support it offers them when their rights are violated.”
Court raises concerns over recent incidents
The court also referred to recent incidents involving police officers entering the homes of TV Republika journalists following false emergency reports.
“Only by way of an aside, it may be noted that in the context of recent media reports concerning actions undertaken by public officials and the police against one of the injured parties in this case and persons associated with him, the juxtaposition of the public prosecutor’s position presented in the justification for discontinuing this investigation with those actions gives rise to the Court’s concern regarding the motives behind decisions taken by state authorities.”
What did the prosecution actually do?
The court also stressed that prosecutors had effectively failed to establish who had posted the threats. The identities of the individuals involved were not determined, their potential criminal records were not verified, and no analysis was conducted as to whether they could, in fact, pose a genuine threat to the injured parties. Meanwhile, as the court noted, only after carrying out such steps can one reliably assess whether the threats were real and capable of causing a justified fear that they might be carried out.
The justification also contains criticism of the course of the proceedings themselves. The court stated that investigators failed to question all key individuals, including the injured parties, and did not secure the full body of evidence from the internet and messaging platforms. According to the ruling, the proceedings were closed before all the circumstances of the case had been thoroughly clarified.
An important issue raised by the court also concerns press freedom. The court noted that prosecutors had largely ignored the question of whether the actions in question may have amounted to an attempt to suppress press criticism. In the court’s view, consideration should have been given to whether the aggressive actions directed at the journalists were intended to intimidate them and create a chilling effect on media activity.
The case will now be returned for further proceedings.