The justice system should be an institution that searches for the truth. Not confirmation of the prosecutor’s thesis. Not a convenient ending to a large or small case. Not a statistical success for an investigation, but the truth.
The stories of Tomasz Komenda, Czesław Kowalczyk, Robert Janczewski, Barbara S., Artur K., as well as the controversial cases of Arkadiusz Kraska, Adam Dudała, Piotr Mikołajczyk, Beata Pasik, Marcin Chmielewski and Krzysztof Kaczmarczyk show that in Poland a citizen can be drawn into criminal proceedings in which they are weaker than the state from the very beginning. On one side stand the prosecution service and judges. On the other stands an individual who often does not understand how the system works and lacks the money, strength or access to knowledge needed to defend themselves effectively against an accusation.
The most dangerous problem is not merely that courts make mistakes, but the way proceedings are approached. When a court or prosecution service makes a mistake, the citizen loses years of life, health, family, reputation and freedom. And when, years later, it turns out that the state was wrong, responsibility usually dissolves into the system. Compensation is paid by the State Treasury — in other words, by taxpayers. Public officials very rarely face any real consequences.
1. Tomasz Komenda spent 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit
The case of Tomasz Komenda is a symbol of one of the greatest failures of the Polish justice system since 1989. It concerned the rape and murder of 15-year-old Małgorzata K. in Miłoszyce on New Year’s Eve, during the night of 31 December 1996 to 1 January 1997.
Tomasz Komenda was accused years after the crime. The indictment was signed by prosecutor Stanisław O. Press sources state that this referred to prosecutor Stanisław Ozimina, although some professional publications and websites anonymise his surname. The first judgment was issued on 14 November 2003 by the Regional Court in Wrocław, 3rd Criminal Division. In the 2018 Supreme Court ruling, the case reference was anonymised as III K (…). Media reported that the panel was chaired by Judge Mariusz Wiązek and that the second professional judge was Judge Beata Kinstler. The panel also included lay judges Anna Tyrcz-Kawała, Jarosław Pauka and Stanisław Wnuk. The Regional Court sentenced Komenda to 15 years’ imprisonment.
On appeal, the case was heard by the Court of Appeal in Wrocław, 2nd Criminal Division. The judgment was issued on 16 June 2004; in the Supreme Court ruling, the case reference was given as II AKa (…). Media reported that the panel consisted of Judges Andrzej Krawiec, Tadeusz Wieczorek and Zofia Świda. The Court of Appeal not only upheld the finding of guilt, but increased the sentence to 25 years in prison.
On 12 May 2005, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal as manifestly unfounded in case V KK 411/04. Media sources identified the panel as Henryk Gradzik, Tomasz Grzegorczyk and Małgorzata Gierszon.
Only on 16 May 2018 did the Supreme Court, in case V KO 26/18, reopen the proceedings, overturn the judgments of the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal, and acquit Tomasz Komenda. The panel consisted of Andrzej Ryński, Józef Szewczyk and Andrzej Tomczyk.
Evidence that had previously been used against Komenda turned out to be flawed or incorrectly assessed. Expert opinions concerning scent traces and bite marks were particularly important. Later, new biological and DNA findings emerged and helped identify the actual perpetrators. In practice, the state kept a man in prison for years on the basis of evidence that should never have led to such a confident conviction.
After his acquittal, Tomasz Komenda was awarded PLN 12 million in compensation for non-material harm and PLN 811,533.12 in damages. The case was heard by the Regional Court in Opole. It was one of the highest amounts ever awarded in Poland for wrongful conviction.
What is most shocking, however, is that the investigation into responsibility for Komenda’s wrongful conviction was discontinued. The Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Łódź investigated the actions of police officers, prosecutors, experts and judges, but no one was charged. The aspects concerning expert witnesses were also discontinued due to insufficient evidence that they had intentionally issued false opinions.
The case was reported by, among others, TVN24, PAP, Onet, Super Express, Newsweek, Interia, RMF24, Rzeczpospolita and the official websites of the Supreme Court.
2. Czesław Kowalczyk spent 12 years and 3 months behind bars
Czesław Kowalczyk was accused of murdering Adam Kwaśny, a horse-riding instructor, in Gdańsk in December 1998. The case was connected with the so-called Contract Killers’ Club.
The trial took place before the Regional Court in Gdańsk. In July 2003, Kowalczyk was sentenced at first instance to life imprisonment. Later, after an appeal, the sentence was changed to 25 years in prison. Subsequent judgments were overturned and the case was remitted for reconsideration.
On 21 August 2012, the Regional Court in Gdańsk acquitted Czesław Kowalczyk of the murder charge. Public reports from the acquittal stage mention Judge Magdalena Szewczak.
The key evidentiary problem was that the case relied on testimony from people who later changed or withdrew their statements. TVN24 reported that the acquittal became possible after co-defendant Adam S. changed his testimony and said that Kowalczyk had nothing to do with the crime. Earlier, the prosecution had relied, among other things, on the account of Iwona C., the victim’s partner, who later withdrew her incriminating statements.
Kowalczyk spent 12 years and 3 months in detention. After his acquittal, he received a total of approximately PLN 2.8–3 million in damages and compensation. Judges and prosecutors did not face criminal or disciplinary responsibility for the miscarriage of justice — no publicly available information indicates otherwise.
The case was reported by, among others, TVN24, Onet, PAP, Rzeczpospolita, Interia, Fakt and Polsat News.
3. Robert Janczewski spent around 7 years in detention in the so-called “Skin Case” — life imprisonment at first instance, acquittal on appeal
Robert Janczewski was accused in one of the most notorious criminal cases in Poland — the murder of Katarzyna Z., a student whose body fragments were recovered from the Vistula River in the late 1990s. The case became known as the “Skin Case”.
The investigation was conducted by the Małopolska Branch of the Department for Organised Crime and Corruption of the National Prosecutor’s Office in Kraków. Prosecutor Piotr Krupiński publicly acted as the prosecutor in the case.
Janczewski was detained in 2017. The trial before the Regional Court in Kraków began in 2020 and was conducted behind closed doors. In September 2022, the Regional Court in Kraków found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
The appeal went to the Court of Appeal in Kraków and was registered under case number II AKa 392/23. On 31 October 2024, the Court of Appeal in Kraków finally acquitted Robert Janczewski. The panel was chaired by Judge Marek Długosz, while significant arguments in the reasoning were presented by Judge Wojciech Domański.
The case was based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution relied, among other things, on a psychological profile, an analysis of circumstantial evidence, witness testimony, a hair found in the defendant’s apartment and earlier polygraph examinations. The Court of Appeal, however, found that the evidence did not form a complete and logical chain of circumstances. The polygraph examinations could not be used against the defendant. The hair found in the bathroom was not sufficient evidence of guilt. The court also found that part of the testimony of a woman who claimed that, as a child, she had seen the defendant with Katarzyna Z. was not sufficiently reliable as evidence.
Robert Janczewski spent approximately seven years in detention. After his acquittal, he filed a claim for more than PLN 22 million in compensation and damages. According to information from 2025 and 2026, the compensation proceedings are ongoing, while the National Prosecutor’s Office filed a cassation appeal against the acquittal.
The case was reported by, among others, PAP, TVN24, Onet, Radio Kraków, Rzeczpospolita, RMF24, TVP Kraków and Gazeta Prawna.
4. Barbara S. spent around two years in prison — Michałek’s mother, first convicted, later acquitted
The case of Barbara S. concerned the death of 4-year-old Michałek, who was drowned in the Vistula River in 2001 by her then-partner Robert K. and his accomplice Daniel S. Barbara S. was accused of inciting the murder of the child and directing the murder.
In the first trial, she was sentenced to 25 years in prison. The judgment was then overturned. The second trial ended in an acquittal, but the case returned once again. Ultimately, on 16 January 2009, the Regional Court in Warsaw acquitted Barbara S. Judge Anna Ptaszek delivered the reasoning.
The fundamental problem in this case was the reliance of the prosecution on statements made by Robert K., which changed repeatedly. TVN pointed out that the only evidence against Barbara S. — Robert K.’s testimony — lost its significance when he withdrew it during the trial. The lack of any motive on the mother’s part was also emphasised, as was the fact that other evidence did not support the prosecution’s theory.
In 2011, Barbara S. received PLN 110,000 in compensation and damages for 20 months of manifestly unjustified detention. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal in Warsaw. The reasoning referred to Judge Jerzy Leder. Public reports also indicate that, in the final stage of the case, the prosecution itself requested Barbara S.’s acquittal, acknowledging that there was no evidence of her involvement in the crime.
The case was reported by, among others, PAP, TVN24, Onet, WP, Interia, RMF24 and Uwaga TVN.
5. Artur K. spent around 5 years in prison for matters that may have been civil rather than criminal
The case of Artur K. reveals another face of systemic incompetence. It does not concern murder, but mass convictions for online fraud following problems with fulfilling orders.
According to a study by the Institute of Justice, 46 judgments were issued against Artur K., with a combined sentence amounting to 17 years’ imprisonment. Court correspondence was sent to his registered address even though he had provided a different residential address during the proceedings. As a result, many cases were heard without the defendant’s meaningful participation.
Only the District Court in Częstochowa, after hearing Artur K. and carefully examining the documents, acquitted him. The court found that Artur K. had not intended to commit fraud, and that the failure to perform some contracts was a civil matter rather than a criminal offence. The reasoning indicated that after difficulties arose, he attempted to mitigate their consequences, refund money and repay debts.
Artur K. spent approximately five years in prisons. Not all of the cases could be reopened.
The case was reported primarily by Gazeta Wyborcza and analysed by the Institute of Justice.
6. Arkadiusz Kraska spent almost 20 years in prison, the judgment was overturned, but the case remains open
Arkadiusz Kraska was convicted of a double murder in Szczecin. The crime took place in 1999; Marek C. and Robert S. died from gunshot wounds. In March 2001, the Regional Court in Szczecin sentenced Kraska to life imprisonment. The judgment was upheld on 3 July 2001 by the Court of Appeal in Poznań.
Public sources identify Maciej Strączyński as the judge who chaired the panel that convicted him. In 2019, the Supreme Court overturned the judgment. The Supreme Court panel was chaired by Judge Barbara Skoczkowska, while the reasoning was discussed by Judge Jacek Błaszczyk.
The testimony of anonymous witnesses designated T-01/99 and T-02/99 played a key role. Years later, the Supreme Court stated that the evidentiary picture had been materially incomplete and that new evidence was of crucial importance. The problems raised included information about a falsified record of police officers’ questioning, the failure to include some materials in the case file, the omission of medical opinions and the results of an inspection of a petrol station, which were said to contradict the testimony of the anonymous witnesses.
Kraska was released after almost 20 years, but he has not been finally acquitted. According to media reports, a new indictment was filed with the court in 2026, and the case is to be heard by the Regional Court in Poznań.
The case was reported by, among others, TVN24, Onet, Rzeczpospolita, WP, Newsweek, PAP and Radio Zet.
7. Adam Dudała — a case based on a crown witness, without an acquittal
Adam Dudała was convicted of two murders. According to Wirtualna Polska, on 30 September 2004 he received a non-final sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment, and a year later the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. Other sources state that he was initially sentenced to life imprisonment and that the sentence was later reduced to 25 years.
The case raises serious controversy because the conviction relied on the testimony of a crown witness. Gazeta Prawna reported that the judgment was based primarily on the words of the crown witness, with no other hard evidence. The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights pointed to a significant risk of a miscarriage of justice.
Judge Barbara Piwnik appears in public sources, but not as the judge who convicted Adam Dudała. Her name appears in connection with later doubts and other proceedings in which information emerged that could have been relevant to Dudała’s case.
Adam Dudała has not been finally acquitted. There is therefore no formal compensation for wrongful conviction. The case remains one of the most frequently cited examples of a possible miscarriage of justice, but without final exoneration.
The case was reported by, among others, Gazeta Prawna, WP, Onet, Polityka, Rzeczpospolita, Fakt and Tygodnik Przegląd.
8. Piotr Mikołajczyk was sentenced to 25 years in prison despite the absence of his traces at the crime scene
Piotr Mikołajczyk was convicted of a double murder in Tłokinia Wielka near Kalisz. The case concerned the murder of two women in 2010. In 2011, the Regional Court in Kalisz sentenced him to life imprisonment. After an appeal, the case was remitted for reconsideration, and he was later sentenced to 25 years in prison. In June 2015, the Court of Appeal in Łódź upheld the judgment.
Judges Andrzej Miller, Krzysztof Patyna and Zbigniew Puszkarski appear in public sources in connection with this case. Judge Krzysztof Patyna conducted the retrial before the Regional Court in Kalisz. He ordered additional expert examinations. According to Interia, once again none of the secured traces matched Piotr Mikołajczyk — neither his DNA nor his fingerprints were found in the house where the crime had been committed.
The key evidence against him was his confession. The problem is that Mikołajczyk is a person with an intellectual disability. Media reports stated that he has the mental development of a child. He later withdrew his confession, while defence lawyers and journalists argued that he may have been subjected to pressure.
The Commissioner for Human Rights filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court, but in 2020 the Supreme Court dismissed it. According to media reports, the panel dismissing the cassation included Judge Zbigniew Puszkarski.
In 2024 and 2025, reports emerged of a new investigation into the murders by unidentified persons, but Piotr Mikołajczyk has still not been acquitted. He therefore has not received compensation.
The case was reported by, among others, Interwencja Polsatu, Polsat News, TVN24, Interia, PAP, WP, Radio Poznań and Wprost.
A common mechanism: accusation and circumstantial evidence
These cases differ in detail, but they share a dangerous pattern.
First, in many of them an enormous role was played by accusations or testimony from people seeking their own benefit: co-defendants, crown witnesses, anonymous witnesses, people from criminal circles or people who repeatedly changed their versions of events.
Second, courts too often accepted weak evidence as sufficient to destroy a person’s life. In theory, doubts are supposed to be resolved in favour of the accused. In practice, in many high-profile cases it looked as though doubts were resolved in favour of the indictment.
Third, the lack of real institutional accountability destroys public trust. When a citizen makes a mistake, the state can act immediately: detain, accuse, arrest and convict. When the state makes a mistake against a citizen, years later we usually hear: statute of limitations, insufficient evidence, absence of the elements of a criminal offence, judicial independence, free assessment of evidence.
Judicial independence cannot mean the right to incompetent action without consequences. The authority of a prosecutor cannot replace evidence. And the prestige of the court cannot be more important than the truth.
What should change
Every case ending in an acquittal after many years of imprisonment should automatically trigger a mandatory audit to determine where the system failed.
Such an audit should answer the following questions:
Who conducted the investigation?
Who signed the indictment?
Who rejected the defence’s evidentiary motions?
Who extended the detention?
Who convicted the defendant?
What evidence was considered sufficient?
Was an alibi ignored?
Were traces inconsistent with the accused ignored?
Did the defendant have a genuine opportunity to defend themselves?
Until such a procedure exists, another case like Tomasz Komenda’s will only be a matter of time. Because a system without accountability will always protect itself first.
Citizens should not be afraid of the court. Citizens should be afraid of criminals. But if a citizen begins to fear the prosecutor and the judge more than the perpetrator of a crime, then the state has ceased to be a shield and has become a threat.
Truth must not lose to the robe.
Evidence must not lose to assumption.
A human being must not lose to the convenience of the system.