Only an honest, uncorrupt and competent judge appoints court experts; a corrupt, dishonest or incompetent judge avoids them and does not appoint experts.
An honest judge is not afraid of an expert
An honest, competent and independent judge knows that in cases requiring specialist knowledge, they cannot rely solely on their own intuition, life experience or a convenient interpretation of the case files. In civil proceedings, Article 278 § 1 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure provides for the appointment of an expert in cases requiring specialist knowledge, while in criminal proceedings Article 193 § 1 of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure states that where establishing circumstances relevant to the determination of a case requires such knowledge, an expert opinion shall be obtained.
This is the simple logic of the rule of law: a judge knows the law, but does not have to know everything. A judge does not have to be an engineer, doctor, psychiatrist, appraiser, handwriting expert, accountant and IT specialist all at the same time. That is what experts are for.
Therefore, if a case concerns, for example, medical malpractice, bodily injury, construction defects, the causes of an accident, a person’s mental condition, the authenticity of a signature, financial settlements or the amount of damage, refusing to appoint an expert may lead to a situation in which the court arbitrarily assumes the role of an expert itself.
And it should not do that.
An expert can ruin a dishonest judge’s plan
If a judge is honest, an expert opinion is a valuable aid. It helps separate facts from emotions, propaganda, personal connections, pressure and private interests. It provides an objective point of reference.
But if a judge is corrupt, dishonest or intends to issue a judgment favouring a particular party, an expert may become a problem. An expert may produce an opinion that does not fit the scenario assumed in advance. The expert may demonstrate that the damage really exists. The expert may confirm medical malpractice. The expert may identify the responsibility of a person whom someone wants to protect. The expert may disprove a version of events favourable to an acquaintance, an influential participant in the proceedings or a party with connections within the court.
This is precisely why, in cases where the truth cannot be reliably established without specialist knowledge, persistent avoidance of appointing an expert should raise the highest level of concern.
A court may refuse to appoint an expert only where the evidence is irrelevant, unsuitable, submitted too late or intended solely to prolong the proceedings. Such grounds are provided for under the rules of civil and criminal procedure.
But there is a fundamental difference between the lawful dismissal of an unnecessary evidentiary motion and refusing to appoint an expert in a case that simply cannot be fairly decided without one.
An incompetent judge also avoids experts
The problem does not necessarily have to involve a bribe. Sometimes the problem is simply incompetence.
An incompetent judge may believe that they “know better”. They may fail to understand the importance of evidence in the form of an expert opinion. They may be unable to formulate appropriate questions for the expert. They may fear that an expert opinion will complicate the case. They may want to conclude the proceedings quickly, even at the expense of the truth.
But the effect on the citizen is similar: the case is decided without using a tool that could have established the actual facts.
Under the rule of law, a judge should not issue a judgment based on their own “it seems to me” when a case requires specialist knowledge. The court may assess an expert opinion. It may analyse it critically. It may request explanations, a supplementary opinion or appoint another expert if the opinion is unclear, contradictory or incomplete. Article 286 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure provides for the possibility of requesting an oral or written supplement to an opinion, an explanation of the opinion or an additional opinion from the same or other experts.
But the court should not replace the expert with itself.
The judge is there to adjudicate, while the expert is there to explain specialist facts
A court-appointed expert is not decoration in judicial proceedings. The expert is not an accessory. The expert is not a formality. In many cases, the expert is a fundamental safeguard ensuring that a judgment is based on knowledge rather than connections, emotions, prejudice or the interests of one of the parties.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that where the determination of a case requires specialist knowledge, it is impermissible to omit evidence in the form of an expert opinion, and the court cannot replace such an opinion with its own conviction.
This means that refusing to appoint an expert in a case requiring specialist knowledge is not a minor technical decision. It may be a decision that determines the entire outcome of the proceedings.
For the weaker party, the injured party or someone without influential connections, such a refusal may mean closing the path to the truth.
A red flag for citizens
Citizens should be particularly cautious when a court refuses to appoint an expert even though:
the case concerns technology, medicine, health, mental health, construction, finance, information technology or valuation;
the judge independently assesses matters for which they have no specialist training;
the court rejects a motion to appoint an expert without a substantive justification;
the court claims that an expert opinion is unnecessary, even though the facts cannot be objectively established without it;
the court disregards an opinion that could be unfavourable to an influential party to the proceedings;
the court refuses to supplement an opinion even though it is unclear, contradictory or omits important circumstances.
In such situations, citizens have the right to ask: is this still an independent assessment by the court, or is it already an attempt to avoid evidence that could ruin a judgment planned in advance?
The simplest rule
An honest judge is not afraid of an expert.
A competent judge knows when a specialist is needed.
An independent judge is not afraid of an opinion that may be inconvenient for one of the parties.
A corrupt, dishonest or incompetent judge, on the other hand, may avoid appointing an expert precisely because an expert opinion deprives them of the ability to shape the facts arbitrarily. An expert may reveal a truth that someone involved in the proceedings does not want to see. The expert may demonstrate that the version adopted by the court is illogical, technically impossible or medically false.
That is why a refusal to appoint an expert in a case requiring specialist knowledge should always be carefully scrutinised. Because where there is no expert, even though there should be one, it becomes all too easy for a judgment to be based not on the truth, but on convenience, connections or the interests of the stronger party.