A lawyer defending a man accused of hate speech in Nysa, Poland, requested the judge disclose his origins, alleging “philosemitism” and “pro-Ukrainianism.”
Defense Argument Based on Online Evidence
The defense attorney, Rafał Rogalski, based his arguments largely on materials found online, including posts from the judge’s private social media profile, photos from demonstrations, and images with Israeli flags from several years ago. He also pointed to the judge’s surname.
Rogalski argued that in a case involving antisemitism charges, the worldview of the presiding judge is crucial. He emphasized that his client holds right-wing views and has publicly spoken on topics such as the LGBT community.
Judge’s Response and Historical Context
Judge Mariusz Ulman repeatedly challenged the defense attorney during the hearing. In response to questions about his origins, he pointed to the historical connotations of such inquiries, questioning whether ethnic matters should be decided according to principles similar to the Nuremberg Laws.
This reference to historical context underscored the weight and controversial nature of the defense’s arguments. The judge also announced the possibility of notifying the bar association.
Offensive Remarks by the Defendant and Escalation of Conflict
The atmosphere surrounding the trial was further exacerbated by remarks made by the defendant, Maciej S. He used abusive language towards the judge during the hearing and continued his attacks on social media afterward, referring to the judge as a “court creature” and a “Polack-eater.”
He also appealed to his followers online to remember the judge’s name and publicly expressed support for his lawyer, claiming his actions had changed the course of the proceedings.
Ethical Concerns and Potential Disciplinary Action
Rafał Rogalski’s statements prompted a strong reaction from the Warsaw Bar Council. Dean Katarzyna Gajowniczek-Pruszyńska stated that such remarks violate fundamental professional standards.
She emphasized that referencing ancestry as a criterion for evaluating a judge’s impartiality is not only irrelevant but also constitutes unacceptable discrimination. The council also reminded that courtroom statements must not violate the dignity of participants or undermine the authority of the court.
Disciplinary Proceedings and Further Steps
The disciplinary prosecutor of the Warsaw Bar Association is analyzing the case based on media reports. Formal action will be possible after receiving an official notification.
The trial footage may serve as the basis for an investigation, and any consequences for the lawyer will depend on whether ethical principles and professional dignity were violated.
