Poland / Appellate Court in Szczecin / II AKa 166/18

Country

Poland

Title

Poland / Appellate Court in Szczecin / II AKa 166/18

View full Case

Year

2018

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Thursday, October 04, 2018

Incident(s) concerned/related

Violence

Related Bias motivation

Nationality
Migrant status
Race/Ethnicity

Groups affected

Migrants
Black people or of African origin

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

Appellate Court in Szczecin

Key facts of the case

The defendant (P.D.) was accused of the public insult and the use of violence against a citizen of the United Kingdom because of his ethnicity and race. The insults used by the defendant undoubtedly pointed to the race of the victim by referring to the darker colour of his skin. The Regional Court in Szczecin found defendant guilty and sentenced him to 2 years of imprisonment and obliged him to pay 7.000 PLN to the victim as a compensation. The victim's legal counsel requested the court of the II istance to review the verdict, arguing the sentence was not severe enough. The Appellate Court upheld the ruling.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The Appellate Court stressed that although the violence used by the defendant was intense and aggressive, it caused only minor injuries to the victim. Besides, the victim did not understand the insults directed towards him, although he could have guessed them. The Appellate Court pointed out the defendant's act was violent, but short, and, although it was committed in the public sphere, there were not many onlookers. Thus, in the opinion of the Appellate Court, the sentence of imprisonment for 2 years was appropriate. The sentence took into account the preventive objective of the penalty, both in terms of general and specific prevention.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

The racist motivation of the perpetrator of the violation of the personal rights of the victim falls under the scope of Art. 119 of the Penal Code (discrimination) and Art. 257 of the Penal Code (racist insult). As such, it is subject to gradation, but when it comes to the "severity" of the violation, the Appellate Court emphasized that the defendant's actions, although intense and aggressive, nevertheless had caused only slight injuries.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The defendant was convicted. The court of the I instance sentenced him to 2 years of imprisonment and obliged him to pay 7.000 PLN to the victim as a compensation. The court of the II instance upheld the verdict. The appellate court dismissed, however, the victim's appeal against the penalty, requesting that it be increased to 3 years because of the high level of blame caused by the racist motivation. In the appellate court's opinion, such penalty would be excessively harsh, given the circumstances of the case.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

"Niewątpliwie oskarżony zaatakował pokrzywdzonego bez usprawiedliwionego powodu, ale też nie sposób dopatrywać się, oprócz motywów dyskryminacyjnych i rasistowskich, także pobudek narodowościowych, (...). Wypowiedzi kierowane przez oskarżonego do pokrzywdzonego wskazują niewątpliwie na dyskryminację i zniewagę z powodu przynależności rasowej („ty brudasie” kolor skóry ciemniejszy, żółty – rasa arabska), nie zaś ze względu na przynależność do innej narodowości."

"Undoubtedly, the accused attacked the victim without any justified reason, but it is also impossible to see, apart from the discriminatory and racist motives, national motives as well. The insults used by the defendant undoubtedly referred to the victim's different skin colour ("dirty skin" darker yellow skin colour - Arabian race), not because of being a person of different nationality."

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.