Immunity was supposed to protect the independence of judges and prosecutors from political pressure. In practice, it can look like a wall against which victims, the families of the deceased, injured parties and ordinary citizens collide. When an average person causes an accident, drives under the influence of alcohol, is caught with someone else’s property or is suspected of accepting a bribe, the prosecution service can act immediately. When similar suspicions concern someone from the courts or the prosecution service, the system must first ask one of their colleagues whether it will even allow its own person to be touched.
This is the most serious problem with immunity in Poland. Not the mere existence of immunity, but the way it can turn into a waiting room for accountability.
An ordinary citizen does not have this comfort. After being detained, a citizen may learn the very same day that they are a suspect. Their home may be searched, their phone seized, their driving licence taken away, they may be questioned, charged and publicly described as the perpetrator. A judge or prosecutor first receives something an ordinary person does not have — an additional layer of protection.
That layer is called immunity.
Immunity was supposed to protect independence, not block accountability
In theory, immunity makes sense. A judge should not have to fear that every unpopular procedural decision will result in retaliation by prosecutors. A prosecutor should not have to fear that pursuing influential people will immediately expose them to intimidation through criminal proceedings. The state should protect justice-system officials from pressure, false accusations and political retaliation.
But theory ends where cases unrelated to judicial independence or the conduct of an investigation begin.
What does judicial independence have to do with hitting a pedestrian on a crossing?
What does prosecutorial independence have to do with drunk driving?
What does protection of the justice system have to do with allegations of shoplifting, checkout fraud or accepting a bribe?
In such cases, immunity does not protect the state. It protects the individual.
And when it protects the individual, the question arises: is it still a guarantee of independence, or has it become a professional privilege?
The death of Dorota Bejgier and 18 months of waiting for a decision
One of the most dramatic examples of recent months is the case of prosecutor Magdalena Z., former head of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Sosnowiec.
The accident occurred on 28 November 2024 in Sieniczno near Olkusz. A car driven by the prosecutor struck Dorota Bejgier, a 28-year-old woman walking along the roadside. She died as a result of her injuries. She left behind a young daughter.
In an ordinary case, a citizen could very quickly face a charge of causing a fatal accident. Here, the case first had to pass through the immunity procedure.
The Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Kraków conducted the investigation under case reference 3017-5.Ds.18.2024. The prosecutor prepared a decision to present charges against the driver. An application was then filed with the Supreme Court for permission to hold prosecutor Magdalena Z. criminally liable.
And at that point, instead of proceeding directly to charges, the case became stuck in the immunity procedure.
Only on 20 May 2026 did the Supreme Court, in case I ZI 24/25, adopt a resolution allowing the prosecutor to be held criminally liable. This means that almost a year and a half passed from the death of the young woman before the system formally allowed the case to move to a stage that, in relation to an ordinary citizen, often comes much sooner.
For the victim’s family, this is not an abstract procedure. These are not provisions in a legal commentary. This is a child without a mother, a cemetery, grief and the question: why could a person from the prosecution service not be treated for so many months in the same way as any other driver?
A judge from Wieliczka and a woman hit on a pedestrian crossing
Another example is a case described by TVN24 and Onet. Ms Anna was struck on a pedestrian crossing in Wieliczka. The car was driven by a district court judge.
According to media reports, four years had passed since the accident and the judge still had not been charged because she was protected by immunity. The case was reportedly stuck in the Supreme Court, also amid disputes over the composition of the judicial panel and the status of judges.
This reveals a second level of the problem.
The injured person is not merely waiting for justice. She is waiting for state institutions to resolve their own procedural disputes. A person hit on a pedestrian crossing is expected to remain patient because the system cannot efficiently decide whether a judge may even be held criminally liable.
From a citizen’s perspective, this sounds like mockery.
If an ordinary driver hits someone on a pedestrian crossing, they cannot hide behind their professional status. They do not wait for years while another chamber, another panel, another constitutional dispute and another procedure determine whether they may be charged. The law simply applies to them.
A judge first passes through a gate reserved for insiders.
A prosecutor from Gdańsk and drunk driving
The next example is prosecutor Damian W. from Gdańsk. TVN24 reported that the man was stopped for a roadside check after driving under the influence of alcohol. According to those reports, almost two months after the incident he still had not been charged because he remained protected by immunity.
This case is particularly important because drunk driving is one of those offences toward which the state publicly declares zero tolerance. The police publish statistics. Prosecutors praise swift action. Courts impose driving bans. Citizens are told there is no excuse.
But when the driver is a prosecutor, an additional question appears again: can he be prosecuted?
And the citizen looks on in disbelief.
Because if the state demands strict compliance with the law from ordinary people, then people working in the prosecution service should be held accountable not more slowly, but more quickly. They know best what a criminal offence is. They prosecute others. They demand punishment. They are the ones who speak in court about social harm, threats to public safety and the need for deterrence.
That is why a prosecutor driving under the influence should not have to pass through a labyrinth of privileges. They should have to pass through the law.
Marek Sadowski. An accident, immunity and years of waiting
One of the best-known historical cases is that of Marek Sadowski, a former Minister of Justice. The accident took place in 1995 in Broniszew near Białobrzegi. A woman, Janina Pachniak, suffered serious injuries and permanent disability.
Media reports stated that prosecutors could not bring charges against Sadowski at the time because he was protected by judicial immunity and the disciplinary court refused to lift it. Later, another immunity-related problem arose in connection with his status as a prosecutor.
The case was only concluded many years later. According to media reports, the final judgment was delivered around 12 years after the accident.
This is an example that should be discussed with law students not as a curiosity, but as a warning.
If an injured person must wait more than a decade because the person suspected of causing an accident is protected by immunity, then the state is not functioning.
Theft, fraud, bribes. Immunity also operates in ordinary offences
Road cases are the most emotionally powerful because they often concern life and health. But the problem of immunity can also be seen in cases that have absolutely nothing to do with judicial or prosecutorial independence.
Judge Robert W. of the Court of Appeal in Wrocław was, according to the National Prosecutor’s Office, to face charges of stealing electronic equipment from Media Markt stores. Prosecutors could only proceed after a decision was made to lift his immunity. What is particularly striking is that charges against the judge’s wife could be presented earlier because she was not protected by immunity.
And it is precisely in such details that inequality becomes visible.
Two people may participate in the same case. One can be charged in the ordinary way. The other waits for a decision from the disciplinary system because they wear a robe.
A similar situation arose in the case of Judge Wiesława B.-M. from Szczecin, involving suspicion of fraud in a hypermarket by placing lower-price labels on products. Prosecutors stated that only after the disciplinary court granted permission could the judge be held criminally liable.
An ordinary customer in such a situation would probably not hear a lecture about safeguards protecting professional independence. They would hear a charge or at least immediately become the subject of police and prosecutorial action.
Corruption in a robe: when the system must first agree to prosecute one of its own
Even more serious are corruption cases.
The National Prosecutor’s Office reported on Judge Sławomir B. of the District Court for the Capital City of Warsaw, in whose case an application was filed to lift immunity in connection with suspected corruption offences. According to prosecutors, the judge was alleged to have demanded and accepted financial benefits from a bankruptcy trustee in insolvency cases. The materials referred, among other things, to money, cars and other benefits.
If such suspicions concern an ordinary public official, prosecutors can act immediately. If they concern a judge, they must first obtain permission.
The same applies in the case of prosecutor M.R. from Lubartów. According to the National Prosecutor’s Office, lifting immunity was necessary in order to carry out procedural steps involving him, including presenting charges. The case concerned suspicion of accepting a bribe.
In the case of the former President of the Court of Appeal in Kraków, Krzysztof S., prosecutors stated that an indictment became possible only after his immunity had been lifted. The charges concerned a very serious case involving the Court of Appeal in Kraków, an organised criminal group, high-value financial benefits and losses amounting to millions of złoty.
And again the question arises: why should a person suspected of corruption within the justice system first benefit from an additional layer of protection, when the justice system itself should be the most transparent institution of all?
The state cannot operate at two speeds
The greatest problem is that Poland increasingly gives the impression of having two speeds of law.
For the citizen: fast mode.
For the robe: protective, formal, delayed, immunity mode.
An ordinary citizen can be detained, questioned, charged and publicly described in an official statement as a suspect. Judges and prosecutors first benefit from protection that may last for months or years. During that time, the victim waits. The family waits. The injured party waits. The public waits. And the system says: procedure.
But justice delayed for years ceases to be justice. It becomes a privilege of the powerful.
Immunity cannot mean that a judge or prosecutor is above the law. It cannot mean that a member of the justice system has more time, more avenues of appeal, more protective barriers and more possibilities to delay proceedings through procedure than an ordinary person.
If immunity is to remain, it should be limited to matters connected with the performance of official functions: adjudication, procedural decisions and the conduct of investigations. In road-traffic, alcohol-related, corruption, theft, violent or property-related cases, however, the procedure should be fast, transparent and subject to public scrutiny.
What should change?
First, there should be a public register of immunity cases involving judges and prosecutors. Citizens should be able to know who used immunity protection, when, in what case and with what result.
Second, cases unrelated to the performance of official duties should be subject to a short statutory deadline for consideration. A road accident, drunk driving, theft or bribery case cannot wait for years simply because the suspected person is a judge or prosecutor.
Third, reasons for refusing to lift immunity should be public to the greatest extent possible. Citizens have the right to know why a person from the justice system cannot be held accountable.
Fourth, immunity cases involving death or serious bodily injury should be handled urgently. A victim’s family cannot wait a year and a half merely for permission to present charges.
Fifth, the judicial and prosecutorial communities should not create the impression that one robe stands behind another. Every delay, every refusal and every procedural game destroys trust in the state more than the act at the centre of the case itself.
Oczy Temidy asks
Why can an ordinary citizen face charges very quickly after an accident, while a person protected by immunity waits for a decision from their own system?
Why should victims’ families watch a case come to a halt not because of a lack of evidence, but because of a professional privilege?
Why does immunity cover situations that have nothing to do with the independence of adjudication or conducting an investigation?
Why is there no simple, public list of cases in which judges and prosecutors have relied on immunity?
And most importantly: can citizens still believe that everyone is equal before the law when some stand before a prosecutor immediately, while others first stand behind the wall of immunity?
Immunity must not be abused
Immunity cannot be a shelter from accountability. It cannot be an armoured shield between the victim and justice. It cannot be a safety card for people who themselves accuse, judge and demand obedience to the law from citizens every day.
Judges and prosecutors should be held accountable at least as strictly as ordinary citizens. Perhaps even more strictly in a moral sense, because they know better than anyone what the law is and how important public trust is.
If a person wearing a robe commits an act unrelated to the performance of their office, they should answer for it like anyone else.
Without months of procedural games.
Without professional protection.
Without the impression that the state protects its own first and searches for the truth only afterwards.
Because justice begins not when the robe protects the robe.
Justice begins when the robe gives no privilege whatsoever over the victim.