Dispute over “temporary arrests”. Ministry of Justice: The president is misleading

Arrest of spies and saboteurs would still be possible; the amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, vetoed by President Karol Nawrocki, did not concern this at all, the Ministry of Justice said on Wednesday.

On Friday, the president's office announced its veto on the amendment to the Act on the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is an extensive reform of criminal procedure regarding, among others, banning the use of illegal evidence and limiting temporary arrests.

The president's spokesman, Rafał Leśkiewicz, arguing for Nawrocki's veto, said that the amendment contained “individual favorable solutions”, but the rest of its provisions could complicate criminal proceedings and would introduce a “high risk of procedural chaos”.

In turn, according to the head of the president's office, Zbigniew Bogucki, if the amendment came into force, it would not be possible to apply pre-trial detention, e.g. “in the case of a suspect, duly accused” of an act under the Penal Code article regarding responsibility for causing “damage to the body of a conceived child or a disorder threatening its life”, as this is punishable by up to two years' imprisonment. Moreover, as Bogucki added, under this amendment, pre-trial detention could not be “in fact applied at all” in the case of an offense under the article of the Penal Code which mentions the liability of, among others, for contacting a person under 15 years of age online for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

The Ministry of Justice published a statement on Wednesday in which it refutes the allegations made by the Chancellery of the President of the Republic of Poland regarding the amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure. “The criticism presented publicly is based on an incorrect interpretation of the regulations and misleads public opinion,” we read in the statement.

The ministry added that the claims that the new regulations prevent the use of pre-trial detention against perpetrators of crimes punishable by up to 2 years' imprisonment are untrue. “The regulations already state that in every case, even when the penalty of imprisonment does not exceed 1 year, pre-trial detention may be imposed (Article 259, paragraph 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). This happens, for example, when the suspect is hiding, does not respond to summons or obstructs the proceedings. The amendment only concerned shifting the limit of the penalty of deprivation of liberty from 1 to 2 years, leaving all the grounds for applying pre-trial detention for these acts unchanged,” it was written.

During Monday's press conference, Bogucki also drew attention to the issue of the “intrinsic premise for the use of pre-trial detention”, which assumes that it is possible when a given crime or offense is punishable by a high criminal penalty. Currently, the KPK assumes that provisional arrest is possible, among others, in a situation where “the accused is accused of committing a crime or a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment of at least 8 years.” The amendment vetoed by the president assumed an increase in the upper limit of the penalty to 10 years.

Moreover, according to Bogucki, not all crimes “harming the fundamental interests of the Republic of Poland: state security, defense, IT security, would be included in the group of those for which it would be possible to use the above-mentioned premise, because these crimes are punishable by up to 8 years' imprisonment.”

According to the ministry, the allegation is untrue because “arrest of perpetrators of serious crimes such as espionage, sabotage or crimes against state security will absolutely remain possible.” The Ministry of Justice added that “the amendment did not concern at all the main grounds for pre-trial detention under Article 258, paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which apply to these crimes.”

Bogucki also talked about the change in the definition of a suspect provided for in the amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure. He stated that by changing this definition, the head of the Ministry was acting in opposition to the Supreme Court, the National Council of the Judiciary, legislators working with the government, as well as the head of the Ministry of Interior and Administration and the minister coordinating secret services. According to him, the definition contained in the novella is vague.

In a statement, the Ministry of Justice pointed out that the new definition is a response to calls to regulate the status of the so-called suspicious person. “This is a person whose authorities take actions aimed at prosecuting (search or production), but is not yet a formal suspect,” wrote the Ministry of Justice. It added that this currently unclear division has been causing controversy for years – one of them is summoning a suspect to be interviewed as a witness. “The amendment put this matter in order (…)” – noted the ministry.

Other of the numerous changes included in the vetoed amendment concerned, among others, issues related to the European arrest warrant system, the use of evidence, confidentiality of contacts between the suspect and his defense lawyer, as well as deadlines for filing an appeal. (PAP)

sza/ ugw/