The justice system is built on a simple assumption: a witness is supposed to tell the truth, the court record is supposed to describe what happened during the hearing, the prosecutor is supposed to search for evidence, and the judge is supposed to assess the case impartially.
But what happens when the person wearing the robe does not safeguard the truth, but starts bending it?
What happens when a judge instructs a party on how to testify?
What happens when the court record does not describe what actually happened in the courtroom?
What happens when a prosecutor, instead of protecting the integrity of the proceedings, influences witnesses, evidence or favourable outcomes?
These are not theoretical questions. In Poland, there have been and still are cases in which judges and prosecutors have appeared in the context of inducing false testimony, falsifying court records, certifying false information, corruption, influence peddling or attempts to influence the outcome of proceedings.
The most dangerous thing is not even the individual offence itself. The most dangerous thing is that such conduct strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law. An ordinary citizen can defend themselves against an opposing party. They can defend themselves against a lying witness. They can defend themselves against an official’s mistake. But how are they supposed to defend themselves when a court document, a hearing record or even the person conducting the case becomes part of the problem?
Roman B. — the judge who instructed a party on how to testify before the trial
One of the most striking cases is that of Roman B., a judge of the District Court in Nysa.
The National Prosecutor’s Office reported that on 18 April 2018, the Regional Court in Świdnica upheld the conviction issued by the District Court in Ząbkowice Śląskie. Roman B. was convicted of exceeding his authority and inducing false testimony. He was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment, conditionally suspended for 2 years, and a fine of PLN 3,200.
According to findings later also described in rulings of the Supreme Court, the judge, while acting as the judge handling the case, initiated three meetings with the mother of the minor claimant. During those meetings, he was alleged to have encouraged her to give false testimony concerning the costs of maintaining the child, instructed her on what information she should provide during the hearing, and assured her that he would issue a judgment as favourable to her as possible.
The disciplinary aspect of the case reached the Supreme Court. The case appears under file references I DSK 13/19 and II DSK 7/19. The Supreme Court stated that Judge R. B. had grossly violated the dignity of judicial office. This was therefore not merely a media rumour or a private complaint made by one of the parties. It was a case in which the courts examined specific conversations, specific conduct and the specific influence of a person wearing a judicial robe on the content of future testimony.
This is exactly the point at which a citizen has the right to ask: if a judge can instruct a party on how to testify, where does adjudication end and the staging of a trial begin?
Zbigniew N., former prosecutor from Rzeszów, and inducing false testimony
The second case takes us to the Podkarpackie region. Zbigniew N., a former Regional Prosecutor in Rzeszów, a prosecutor of the former Appellate Prosecutor’s Office in Rzeszów and an adviser to Ministers of Justice, was one of the figures described in connection with the so-called Podkarpackie scandal.
The National Prosecutor’s Office reported that an indictment against him was filed in January 2018 by the Silesian Branch of the Department for Organised Crime and Corruption of the National Prosecutor’s Office in Katowice. The case was heard at first instance by the District Court in Tarnów. Rzeszów News later reported that the Regional Court in Tarnów upheld a sentence of 5 years of unconditional imprisonment.
The charges against Zbigniew N. included corruption-related allegations, invoking influence in state institutions, as well as the allegation of inducing K. P. to give false testimony to the prosecutor’s office and conceal the truth. The prosecution classified this conduct under Article 18 § 2 of the Polish Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 233 § 1 of the Polish Criminal Code.
This case is particularly disturbing because it concerned a man who had spent years operating at a high level within the prosecution service. A prosecutor is supposed to stand on the side of procedural truth. A prosecutor is supposed to detect crimes, secure evidence and ensure that witnesses are not intimidated, instructed or manipulated to fit a predetermined narrative. If a person with such experience appears in a case involving the inducement of false testimony, this is not an ordinary violation of the law. It is a blow to public trust in the entire institution.
Anna C. from the District Court in Chełm — a falsified court record which, according to the prosecution, did not tell the truth
Another case shows how dangerous a court record can become when it is misused.
On 21 June 2018, the National Prosecutor’s Office announced that an indictment had been filed against Anna C., a judge of the District Court in Chełm. The case was handled by the Internal Affairs Department of the National Prosecutor’s Office.
According to the prosecution, the judge was alleged to have certified false information in the record of a criminal hearing held on 26 February 2016. The record stated that the decision discontinuing the proceedings had been announced in the presence of the parties and that the parties had been informed about the deadline and procedure for filing an appeal. According to the findings of the investigation, the decision was in fact not announced at the hearing.
The prosecution stated that the consequence of such conduct was to deprive the parties of the opportunity to appeal against the decision discontinuing the proceedings. She was also accused of inducing the court clerk to certify false information.
The case was reported by Onet, which stated that the National Prosecutor’s Office had accused the judge from Chełm of falsifying a hearing record. The National Prosecutor’s Office also reported that disciplinary proceedings had been conducted against Anna C., and that she had been suspended from performing her official duties since 2016.
This is a fundamental issue because a court record is not just a piece of paper. The record is the memory of the proceedings. If the record does not tell the truth, a citizen may lose not because they were wrong, but because an official state document describes a reality different from what actually happened in the courtroom.
Another judge, K. Ś., and a record inconsistent with what happened during the hearing
Another powerful example can be found in the Supreme Court ruling of 14 September 2016, file reference SNO 7/16.
The case concerned K. Ś., a judge of a District Court. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the disciplinary court. The ruling stated that the judge had been found guilty of certifying false information in the record of a hearing in case II K (…)/09.
According to the description contained in the ruling, the court record stated that after conducting the hearing, the court had issued a cumulative judgment, even though no such judgment had in fact been issued at that time, signed or announced. In the same case, Judge K. Ś. was also found guilty of inducing the court clerk K. P., in her capacity as the judge handling the case, to place in the case file a record inconsistent with the actual course of the hearing, which she had prepared herself.
This is not a minor inaccuracy. This is a situation in which a document contained in the case file was supposed to describe a judicial act which, according to the findings, never occurred. If a citizen cannot trust the record of a court hearing, they cannot trust any stage of the proceedings.
Rafał R. from the District Court in Kraśnik and two different versions of the record from the same hearing
On 30 April 2020, the National Prosecutor’s Office announced that an indictment had been filed against Rafał R., a judge of the District Court in Kraśnik.
According to the prosecution, the judge was alleged to have exceeded his authority by removing two pages of the hearing record from the case file and replacing them with other, falsified pages. He was also alleged to have altered the document stored in the IT system in which the record was saved.
The case concerned proceedings involving an assault. The final hearing took place on 11 May 2016, and a judgment was issued on the same day. One of the defendants obtained a copy of the hearing record, and his defence lawyer argued on appeal that not all evidence had been disclosed during the final hearing. The problem was that the record provided to the party differed from the record contained in the court file.
The case was reported by the National Prosecutor’s Office, Rzeczpospolita and Polsat News. Polsat News wrote that, according to the National Prosecutor’s Office, the matter was obvious because falsification must have occurred.
This case should serve as a warning to every citizen. If there are two versions of the record from the same hearing, someone must answer the question of which version is authentic, who changed it and why.
Judge A. C. of the District Court and certifying false information in court records
In a resolution of the Supreme Court dated 6 July 2016, file reference SNO 26/16, another important issue concerning court records appears.
The case concerned A. C., a judge of a District Court. The Supreme Court examined a request for permission to hold the judge criminally liable. In its reasoning, the Supreme Court referred to the certification of false information in records of court hearings.
This reveals yet another problem. Even when false information appears in court documents, the system may still assess whether it was of “fundamental” importance or not. From the citizen’s point of view, however, a different question arises: why should false information appear in the record of a court hearing at all?
A court document should function like a camera recording. It should state what happened. It should not be altered for convenience, appearance, the desired outcome of a case or the interests of an official.
Janusz K., former judge from Kościerzyna, and favourable rulings in exchange for money
Not every form of procedural dishonesty involves falsifying a court record. Sometimes it is far more brutal: the judgment itself becomes a commodity.
The National Prosecutor’s Office described the case of Janusz K., a former judge of the District Court in Kościerzyna. On 27 April 2017, the Regional Court in Koszalin sentenced him for four corruption offences to a combined sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment.
According to the National Prosecutor’s Office, Janusz K., acting as a public official, demanded and accepted financial benefits. Between 2003 and 2008, he was alleged to have accepted PLN 70,000 and, in return, issued favourable rulings. In another aspect of the case, while serving as the Head of the 2nd Criminal Division, he was alleged to have accepted PLN 40,000 and, in exchange, issued an acquittal in one of the cases he was handling.
The case was also reported by TVN24 and Onet. The media referred to bribes in exchange for favourable rulings, assistance with appeals and benefits that, in a normal state governed by the rule of law, should never appear at a judge’s desk. Yet where there is an extensive network of acquaintances dating back to law school and reinforced through various judicial associations, such cases can become practices that are extremely difficult to eradicate.
This is the clearest symbol of the collapse of the judicial mission. If a judgment can be bought, the citizen is no longer standing before a court. They are standing before a network of influence.
Anna H., former Appellate Prosecutor in Rzeszów — corruption and influence
The Podkarpackie scandal also involved Anna H., a former Appellate Prosecutor in Rzeszów, identified in the media as Anna Habało.
The National Prosecutor’s Office reported that the Regional Court in Tarnów upheld a sentence of 6 years of unconditional imprisonment. The first judgment was issued on 18 March 2019 by the District Court in Tarnów. The court convicted Anna H. of a number of corruption-related offences, abuse of authority by a public official, disclosure of information covered by professional secrecy and submission of a document certifying false information in order to obtain a loan.
The court also imposed a 10-year ban on practising, among other professions, as a prosecutor. The case was reported by the National Prosecutor’s Office, the Polish Press Agency, Onet and regional media.
This is yet another example where the problem is not a simple mistake. The problem is the use of position, contacts and influence. And when such things happen at a high level within the prosecution service, an ordinary citizen has every right to ask how many cases were never investigated honestly because someone had connections, influence or protection within the professional environment.
Andrzej Z. — another prosecutor from Warsaw-Praga and the allegation involving one million złoty
One of the most high-profile cases of recent years was that of Andrzej Z., a prosecutor of the Warsaw Praga-Północ District Prosecutor’s Office.
In October 2020, the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau reported that CBA officers had detained the prosecutor following a decision by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court lifting his immunity. According to the CBA, the evidence gathered indicated the handing over of one million złoty as well as a range of personal benefits: shirts, match tickets, alcohol and sponsored meals.
The most disturbing element, however, was the alleged mechanism itself. According to the CBA, in exchange for those benefits the prosecutor was alleged to have lifted the temporary detention of a murder suspect despite there being grounds for maintaining the detention. He was also alleged to have created false evidence supporting the person’s innocence and disclosed information from the investigation.
The case was reported by the CBA, TVN24, Polsat News, the Polish Press Agency and Rzeczpospolita. Press reports emphasised that the case concerned a prosecutor suspected of accepting a bribe worth one million złoty.
A prosecutor becomes dangerous when, instead of searching for the truth, they are alleged by law-enforcement authorities to have helped construct a false procedural narrative.
Zygmunt K. — yet another former Appellate Prosecutor in Warsaw and promises of influence
In November 2023, the CBA announced the detention of a former appellate prosecutor and his daughter in connection with claims of influence within state institutions. The National Prosecutor’s Office stated that the persons detained were Zygmunt K., a former Appellate Prosecutor in Warsaw, and his daughter Magdalena K.
The case is being handled by the Mazovian Branch of the Department for Organised Crime and Corruption of the National Prosecutor’s Office in Warsaw. According to the statement issued by the National Prosecutor’s Office, the allegations concerned claiming influence in order to secure favourable outcomes in ongoing civil and criminal cases and causing victims to dispose of their property to their detriment. The damage was said to amount to at least PLN 800,000.
The prosecution stated that between 2021 and 2023 Zygmunt K. was alleged to have created the impression that he had influence in courts and prosecution offices throughout the country.
This case shows that even the belief that someone has “connections” in courts and prosecution offices can become a form of currency. And if people believe that a favourable outcome can be “arranged”, it means that trust in the justice system has been dramatically weakened.
The prosecutor from Puck and falsifying documents to conceal negligence
Rzeczpospolita also reported on the case of a prosecutor from the District Prosecutor’s Office in Puck, whom the Supreme Court’s Chamber of Professional Responsibility decided to remove from the profession. According to the newspaper, the disciplinary proceedings had been ongoing since 2017, and the allegations concerned, among other things, falsifying documents and forging signatures.
Rzeczpospolita reported that the prosecutor had handled serious investigations, including cases concerning involuntary manslaughter, exposing a patient to the risk of loss of life, creating a threat to patients’ health and abuse of authority by local government employees. According to the newspaper’s account, the problem was that in those cases she herself had repeatedly failed to fulfil her official duties.
In one case, she was alleged to have failed to attach an expert opinion to the case file on time and then provided her superior with a copy of the opinion containing a falsified first page with false procedural dates. In another part of the case, a signature supposedly certifying that documents had been dispatched was found to have been forged.
This shows that falsifying documents does not always serve directly to convict a particular person. Sometimes it may serve to conceal negligence, delays and incompetence. But for the citizen, the effect may be the same: proceedings conducted by the state cease to be credible.
The biggest problem: citizens cannot see what happens behind closed doors
All these cases have one thing in common: an ordinary citizen is powerless when manipulation takes place in documents, hearing records, case files or informal contacts.
If a witness is prepared in advance for testimony, the citizen hears falsehood in the courtroom presented as “truth” that may already have been scripted.
If the record is altered, the citizen sees in the case file a version they may be unable to challenge effectively.
If a prosecutor discloses information from an investigation or creates false evidence, the citizen is no longer fighting an opposing party, but the machinery of the state.
If a judge accepts money in exchange for favourable rulings, the court ceases to be a court and becomes a service point for the influential.
That is why transparency is necessary. Cameras are needed in courtrooms. Access to recordings is needed. Real disciplinary and criminal accountability is needed. Public registers are needed of cases in which justice-system officials have been convicted, indicted or removed from office through disciplinary proceedings for violating procedural truth.
Because truth in court cannot depend on who controls the court record, who knows the judge or prosecutor, who meets with a witness and who has access to the case file.
The simplest principle of the rule of law is this: the witness must tell the truth, the court record must describe the truth, evidence must serve the truth, and judges and prosecutors must be the guardians of the truth.
If the robe starts teaching people how to lie, falsify documents or trade in influence, then this is no longer a justice system. It is a system of appearances.
Sprawa Romana B. jest opisana w komunikacie Prokuratury Krajowej o utrzymaniu wyroku przez Sąd Okręgowy w Świdnicy oraz w orzeczeniach SN, m.in. I DSK 13/19 i II DSK 7/19.
The case of Roman B. is described in a statement by the National Prosecutor’s Office concerning the judgment upheld by the Regional Court in Świdnica and in Supreme Court rulings, including I DSK 13/19 and II DSK 7/19.
The cases concerning court records: Anna C. of the District Court in Chełm was described by the National Prosecutor’s Office and Onet; K. Ś. appears in the Supreme Court ruling SNO 7/16; Rafał R. of the District Court in Kraśnik was described by the National Prosecutor’s Office, Rzeczpospolita and Polsat News.
The prosecutorial and corruption cases: Zbigniew N., Anna H., Janusz K., Andrzej Z. and Zygmunt K. are described in statements issued by the National Prosecutor’s Office and the CBA, as well as in media reports including Rzeszów News, TVN24, Polsat News, the Polish Press Agency, Onet and Rzeczpospolita.
The case of the prosecutor from Puck was reported by Rzeczpospolita.