The court found that the evidence of guilt was crushing. The court sentenced Dariusz F. to:

  • 7 months’ imprisonment, conditionally suspended for two years
  • PLN 8,000 payable to the injured party
  • a prohibition on approaching the injured party
  • a three-year prohibition on holding managerial positions
  • a written apology to the injured party

After the verdict, the injured party, an employee of the municipal cemetery, commented on it.

– This verdict is not indifferent to me, because when I looked at the defendant, he looked like a beaten dog – says the injured party, Ewa. – On the other hand, I feel very strong after what happened. I think it strengthened me a lot, and I know how to react in the future. How not to let people walk all over me. I thank everyone who supported me, because I did not expect it. On behalf of the workplace and the people who handled this matter, I thank the prosecutor and the honourable court. I can say that I am happy – the injured party adds.

According to the evidence gathered by the prosecution, while serving as manager of the municipal cemetery in Bolesławiec, Dariusz F. repeatedly humiliated, ridiculed and criticised a subordinate cemetery administration employee. He threatened to dismiss her or change her position. According to the prosecution, he also induced the woman to forge his signature on documents while he was absent from work.

The defendant was convicted for the above under Article 207, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code

Anyone who physically or mentally abuses a close person or another person who is in a permanent or temporary relationship of dependence on the perpetrator, or a minor or a person who is helpless due to their mental or physical condition, is subject to imprisonment from three months to five years.

In his closing speech on 22 February 2022, prosecutor Sebastian Woźniak used strong words, saying that the former manager should never manage employees because he was not suited to it.

– In reality, I see no difference between the defendant’s behaviour and that of an abuser at home who abuses his wife. I see an outright identity between these kinds of behaviour – Sebastian Woźniak said in his closing speech.

Updated 2022-03-01 at 11:51

The court considered the fact that the defendant is a public figure, a councillor and a Catholic to be aggravating circumstances, meaning that greater standards of conduct and behaviour are expected of such people. In this case, the defendant cannot be treated as an average citizen. The court considered as a second aggravating circumstance the fact that the defendant was found to have committed two offences of different types. As mitigating circumstances, the court took into account that the defendant had not previously come into conflict with the law.

Reasons for the verdict

The compensatory payment and apology are of significant importance in this case. The amount of the compensatory payment takes into account all the circumstances listed above: the scale of the experience suffered by the injured party, its duration, the consequences that resulted from it, the intensity of her suffering, the length of her illness and the lasting effects. It is intended to compensate for the costs of public treatment and, moreover, to alleviate the sense of harm in the non-material psychological spheres of the injured party.

Under these circumstances, the compensatory payment is intended not only to compensate the injured party for the harm suffered, but also to educate and deter. As for the prohibition on contacting and approaching the injured party, it is intended to protect her and give her a sense of security.

As for the prohibition on holding positions involving supervision of or management over employees, which the court imposed for a period of three years, this is the necessary period to protect society from similar behaviour in the future. In the court’s assessment, the defendant’s continued holding of such positions poses a threat to important interests protected by law.

By committing the offence the defendant demonstrated that he lacked the requisite professional and moral qualifications to supervise or manage people. In view of his conduct during the trial and the fact that the defendant did not understand the reprehensibility of his actions and still sees himself as a victim. And in view of the fact that he drew no conclusions from the witnesses’ testimony. He blamed other people for the problem and tragedy that affected his family—his mother and wife—without recognising his own role. In the court’s assessment, there is a future risk that the behaviour attributed to him may continue to recur.

The court cannot ignore such behaviour, because the law is equal for everyone. The verdict is intended to bring relief to the injured party and, in the public’s perception, to be fair to the average citizen. For the defendant, it is to serve as a warning for the future, so that such events do not happen again.