The portal Niezalezna.pl tried to determine who issued Friday’s ruling in the case of Sławomir Nowak. But—surprisingly—spokespersons for both the District Prosecutor’s Office and the court insisted they… had no such knowledge. Unofficially, we have established that it was a very inexperienced 29-year-old court assessor.
The Warsaw District Prosecutor’s Office did release a statement yesterday, but it did not clarify the main doubts. It only confirmed that on September 19, a preliminary hearing was held at the Mokotów court concerning the accused Sławomir Nowak and three other men.
“The hearing ended with the court issuing a decision to discontinue the proceedings under Article 339 § 2 point 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, due to an obvious lack of grounds for the indictment,” said Prosecutor Piotr Antoni Skiba, spokesman for the Warsaw prosecutor’s office.
For now, we do not know the reasons for the decision, and the written justification is to be ready only on Friday.
We therefore decided to find out who issued the ruling in Nowak’s case, discontinuing the proceedings at such an early stage. And here the problems began.
The spokesperson for the District Prosecutor’s Office claimed he did not know who made the decision. We then asked the court—but Judge Anna Ptaszek, spokeswoman for the Warsaw District Court, also claimed she had no such information!
Intrigued by this strange lack of knowledge, we decided to establish the fact ourselves. Unofficially, we learned that the decision was issued by a very inexperienced 29-year-old assessor, Arkadiusz Domasat. He received his appointment in August 2024.
But that was not the end of the strange “coincidences” surrounding Nowak’s case.
We asked the prosecutor’s office who on their side was the case’s referent, and also whether the prosecutor present at Friday’s hearing had consulted his position with his superiors. Part of the answer appeared in the official statement, though it was rather bizarre.
“Due to the changing staffing situation, the described cases before the District Court and regional courts did not and do not have a permanent referent and are handled on an ongoing basis by various prosecutors,” admitted Prosecutor Skiba.
This means one thing—the prosecutor sent to court was chosen “at random,” unfamiliar with the evidence. And that’s not all. It turned out that the court had convened for a completely different purpose.
“The hearing at which motions were submitted was a preliminary hearing, not one concerning the discontinuation of proceedings,” Skiba added.
Was the prosecutor in this situation seeking the opinion of his superiors?
“I have no information that this decision was consulted with the leadership of the District, Regional, or National Prosecutor’s Office,” said Prosecutor Skiba.