Poland’s parliament will proceed with criminal procedure reforms despite the President’s veto, with a focus on limiting the use of pre-trial detention.
Presidential Veto Overruled, Reform Advances
The President’s veto of a broad amendment to the Polish criminal procedure code did not halt discussions about necessary changes to the country’s justice system. The legal community has prepared its own reform proposals, focusing on pre-trial detention—a particularly controversial instrument.
A document prepared by the Polish Bar Council has already been submitted to the Sejm (parliament) and will serve as a starting point for further legislative work.
29th Veto of Presidential Term
Karol Nawrocki’s decision to veto the amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure was his 29th veto during his term. The bill, sent to the President, included a wide range of changes—from redefining the concept of a suspect to limiting the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence and modifying the powers of law enforcement agencies.
Focus on Pre-Trial Detention
Key to the reform were provisions regarding the application of pre-trial detention. These aimed to encourage courts to use this preventative measure more sparingly, as it has long been a source of serious controversy in Poland. Despite being considered moderate, the proposed solutions represented the first systemic attempt to address growing problems.
Veto Maintains Existing Regulations
The President’s veto—influenced in part by elements of the prosecutor’s office—prevented the reform from taking effect. This means that existing regulations, largely shaped during the period when Zbigniew Ziobro was Minister of Justice, will remain in place.
Pressure on Pre-Trial Detention Practices
The overuse of pre-trial detention in Poland has been criticized by lawyers and international institutions. Data indicates that the number of people held in pre-trial detention remains high, and the duration of this measure is often lengthy.
European Court of Human Rights Concerns
The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly pointed to a systemic problem of prolonged pre-trial detention in Poland. The court has emphasized that this measure should be used exceptionally, not as a standard tool for securing proceedings.
Concerns Over Quasi-Preventative Use
Legal organizations and experts also point out that detention is sometimes used in a quasi-preventative manner, and court decisions often rely on repetitive, schematic justifications. This leads to situations where formally innocent individuals—those not yet convicted—spend months or even years in isolation.
Bar Council’s Alternative Proposal
In response to the government reform being blocked, the Polish Bar Council prepared its own draft changes. The document submitted to the Sejm focuses primarily on limiting the use of pre-trial detention and strengthening the procedural guarantees of suspects.
Stricter Grounds for Detention
One of the main postulates is the introduction of more rigorous grounds for applying detention. Lawyers propose that courts should be more obliged to demonstrate a real risk of flight, obstruction of justice, or the commission of a new crime. The mere threat of a severe penalty should not, in their opinion, be sufficient to justify an isolation measure.
Enhanced Monitoring of Detention Length
The project also proposes strengthening control over the length of detention, with more frequent and detailed examinations of the justification for continued deprivation of liberty. This would mean greater responsibility for courts for each extension of detention and a need to refer to specific circumstances of the case.
Alternative Preventative Measures
The Bar Council also proposes wider use of alternative preventative measures, such as police supervision, travel bans, or property bonds. According to the concept, detention should be a last resort, used only when other solutions prove insufficient.
Dispute Over Criminal Procedure Direction
The proposals from the legal community fit into a broader dispute over the shape of Polish criminal procedure. On one hand, there are calls for increased procedural guarantees and limitations on the powers of law enforcement agencies; on the other, arguments for ensuring the effectiveness of criminal proceedings.
Arguments for and Against Liberalization
Opponents of liberalizing the regulations argue that excessive restrictions could hinder the fight against serious crime. Supporters of the changes emphasize that the current model too often violates individual rights and leads to disproportionate interference with personal freedom.
Potential for Parliamentary Debate
In this context, the initiative of the Polish Bar Council could become an important impetus for reopening parliamentary debate. Even if the project is not adopted in its entirety, its assumptions may influence the direction of future reforms.