The Court watch Polska Foundation published another report summarizing the functioning of the courts. It suggests that 2021 The percentage of hearings that took place on time increased, while their quality decreased.
While, for example, in the US, courts had already developed a strategy for dealing with pandemics a few years ago and e.g. in Texas already the next day after the announcement of the lockdown were equipped with individual licenses for videoconferencing applications, Polish courts were forced to act ad hoc.
This resulted in chaos, which favoured central management, sometimes contrary to democratic standards (e.g. questionable legal quality of the rules on the exclusion of the transparency of trials), as well as quite natural in this type of situation nervous behavior and administrative shortcomings.
As the report says, one third with the courts in May she closed her doors to the public and media. This was not the result of either the bill or even the regulation.
Access to justice
As the report says, one third with the courts in May she closed her doors to the public and media. This was not the result of either the bill or even the regulation.
The management of the Presidents and Directors of the Courts prohibiting and limiting the admission of persons who did not receive a subpoena was issued after recommendations sent by the Deputy Minister of Justice – Judge Anna Dalkowska. Fortunately, these restrictions have not been imposed in all courts.
The management, staff and judges of many courts have tried to maintain access to justice.
The report mentions people who, despite the pandemic, cared about transparency and the availability of proceedings. Thus President Krzysztof Kurosz of the District Court for Łódź-Śródmieście ensured that the online hearings in his court were fully accessible to the public.
There was also information on the e-vocard about which meeting and which hearing is held through videoconferencing.
President Joanna Bitner of the District Court in Warsaw made sure that journalists and audiences could participate in the case in case of great interest, sitting in an additional room, where the sound and image from the trial were broadcast.
Judge of the New Sącz District Court Bartosz Łopalewski, realizing that his announcements of judgments could not be public, as the Constitution orders, published them on YouTube during the closing of his court.
Worse side of the medal
Unfortunately to this day, despite the introduction by the new Deputy Minister of Justice – Judge Catherine Frydry – of new recommendations, the bans on public access remain around 10% Courts. Despite the increase in the proportion of meetings that started on time (53% with 46% last year; increase in the proportion of meetings observed, which eventually came to fruition (93% with 92%); and a decrease in the rate of observation in the criminal departments during which the prosecutor or the attorney, one of the parties, was in the courtroom outside the time of the hearing (from 9% to 8%), There have been alarming statistics indicating the faulty work of some judges. Thus, there was an increase in the percentage of hearings, where observers say:
- • transparency has been excluded (8% with 4%);
- • the judge referred to the person in the courtroom in an uncultural or aggressive manner (4% with 2%);
- • the judge did not instruct witnesses or parties of their rights before taking a statement or explanation in a way that they understood (8% with 6%);
- • participants could not count on an explanation or apology for delaying the hearing (72% with 70%);
- • The judge had reservations about the observer's presence (3% with 1%);
- • the parties were, according to the observer, treated unevenly (3% with 1%);
- • the parties could not speak freely and rely on the attention of the court (3% with 2%);
- • there have been objections to the way the hearing was recorded (3% with 2%);
- • the audibility of the statements during the hearing was weak (6% with 5%).