The case of the leaders of the Women’s Strike, accused of organizing a demonstration during the pandemic, was returned to the prosecutor’s office. The District Court in Warsaw made such a decision due to errors in the structure of the charges and evidence. The defendants’ attorney stated that the type of errors committed in the construction of the indictment “were of an academic nature”, while the prosecutor announced that he would file a complaint.
At the beginning of July, he was brought to court indictment against the three leaders of the National Women’s Strike: Marcie Lempart, Klementyna Suchanow and Agnieszka Czerederecka, in connection with the organization of protests against the tightening of the abortion law in Poland. The prosecution accused them of causing a danger to the life and health of many people in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, for which they face up to eight years in prison. As the prosecutor Aleksandra Skrzyniarz, a spokeswoman for the District Prosecutor’s Office in Warsaw, told us at the time, Marta Lempart was also accused of insulting police officers and publicly praising crimes consisting in destroying the facades of church buildings and maliciously interfering with the public performance of the religious act of the church.
On Monday, November 29, the District Court in Warsaw decided to return the case to the prosecutor’s office due to errors in the structure of the charges and evidence. – The accusations made by the prosecutor seem to be clearly incomplete, especially the responsibility under Article 226. Although it concerns a public official, it must undoubtedly concern a natural person, it must rely on specific behavior directed at such a person – said the judge.
Doubts of the court were also raised by the charges against the interview provided by Marta Lempart: – The issues indicated by the defense in terms of conducting the interview in question and the incitement accused by the prosecutor of inciting to breach the law, must be committed with intent, with a direct intention.
– The elements relating to the first allegation are also important, because in an inconsiderate manner and not only based on the conviction of the prosecutor’s office, responsibility must be indicated, the relationship between the increase in infections and the fact of organizing and carrying out a specific demonstration. This relationship must be undoubtedly – explained the judge.
The prosecutor’s office announces that a complaint will be filed
A written justification of the court’s decision is to be issued within seven days. The prosecutor has already announced that he will file a complaint. – In fact, it will be possible to refer to this matter after getting to know the written reasons for this decision. At the present stage, the court, due to the postponement of the preparation of the justification for this decision, has not indicated what activities the prosecutor would still perform in the course of the proceedings. I think that this decision will be appealed against by the prosecutor’s office – said the prosecutor Szymon Banna.
He also emphasized that, in his opinion, the material submitted to the court could constitute “the basis for the taking of evidence for the acts indicated in the indictment”.
Lempart’s attorney: the type of error in the indictment is academic
– The court clearly stated that the structure of the charges proposed by your prosecutor’s office was incorrect. That is, there is a lack of completeness of the allegations in the case of my client as to the alleged insulting of a police officer and to the alleged incitement or condemnation of the commission of a crime in terms of an interview given by one of the radio stations. Also in the scope of the first scope, the court noticed that there was no causal link between holding assemblies and the alleged exposure to danger, said Katarzyna Gajowniczek-Pruszyńska, attorney of Marta Lempart.
She also referred to the announcement that a complaint would be lodged by the prosecutor’s office: – Everything will depend on the quality of the justification prepared by the court. If it reflects what the court perfectly presented today, I am not afraid that this procedure should be returned. I would not be optimistic about this complaint, because I believe that the type of errors that were made in the construction of the indictment are of an academic nature and until they are corrected, which can only be done by the prosecutor, the case will be you just can’t go to trial.
Gajowniczek-Pruszyńska also provided the exact errors it is about. – In the case of the alleged exposure to epidemiological danger, it has not been shown how this happened. It did not become an element of the description of the act, so we are talking about something extremely basic here. When examining a case, the court must first of all know what the accusation is about the accused, and this has not been carried out. I am not talking about deliberate action. We think this is also a question of error – said the lawyer.
She emphasized that the prosecutor’s office did not indicate exactly – by name and surname – the officer who was to be insulted by Marta Lempart and what exact words she used against him.
– The third act, related to this interview, which Marta Lempart gave, does not have basic information whether this interview was live, or whether she gave this interview outside the radio headquarters, and if so, there is no public manifestation of certain views. In this case, it was about the alleged exhortation or solidarity with the destruction of property and this element – explained Dr. Katarzyna Gajowniczek-Pruszyńska.
Main photo source: tvn24