Dubois and Lewandowski on Impartiality in Skrzypek Case

Attorney Jacek Dubois sought to defend public prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek, with whom he sat during the interrogation of the late Barbara Skrzypek. The opposing lawyer Gerald Birgfellnyr argued that WrzoSek did not fully grasp the witness’s views and did not ensure her safety. He described the moment as tragic, noting that the witness’s death occurred, though such events happen. Bartosz Lewandowski challenged the idea of impartiality in a setting where the person named in the report leads the opposition and has publicly criticized the prosecutor.

Dubois vs. Lewandowski

The exchange on Polsat News featured Bartosz Lewandowski, known for defending PiS MP Marcin Romanowski, and Jacek Dubois. Gerald Birgfellnyr, who represented the Austrian businessman, acted as counsel during the interrogation of the late Barbara Skrzypek at the Warsaw prosecutor’s office three days before Skrzypek’s death.

One central question concerned why Ewa WrzoSek allowed Barbara Skrzypek to be questioned without the lawyer present. Lewandowski pointed out that the rules governing when a lawyer may interrogate a witness are broad and open to interpretation.

In his remarks, Dubois recalled a time in his career when the public prosecutor did not align with the defense. He noted that the report from Skrzypek’s hearing suggested a later order would be issued.

He added that he did not know whether such an order had been released and indicated that the presence of a representative during certain actions would have been beneficial.

Dubois admitted that in the earlier phase of the case known as Two Towers there were proxies with witnesses, describing the situation as a matter of legal interest that could carry exposure to potential liability for criminal acts.

Public Prosecutor WrzoSek did not provide her safety during the session, according to the discussion. The interviewer pressed why there was no recorder, and Birgfellnyr presented a blunt response that left little room for doubt.

The discussion then pivoted to the role of the prosecutor. It was suggested that the frequency of probing questions varies by individual prosecutor, though many observers would see such questions as part of a broader duty to clarify the record. The point was made that this is often a personal matter for those involved.

Dubois added that many questions are part of post factum reflections and conceded that having Skrzypek’s representative present to ensure recording would have been preferable, though such a practice is not always followed in practice.

Lewandowski agreed with Dubois on the observation that public prosecutors perform numerous activities and that the situation should be addressed openly, without omitting important details. He argued that in investigations and public accusations directed at a prosecutor and their public statements, all activities should be captured in audio and video form—especially in matters that captivate the public’s attention.

The interviewer then asked whether Dubois or Wrzosek had made a mistake. The reply suggested that these episodes were not necessarily mistakes but rather reflections of normal practice; WrzoSek did not appear to seek fault and conducted interrogations without complaint.

Dubois stressed that the incident was not an indictment of the prosecutor, noting that the death of the witness was tragic and happened in a hospital or other circumstances. He observed that such outcomes do not automatically signal wrongdoing by the prosecutor, while acknowledging that the argument was surprising to many observers.

Readers were reminded of the existence of the Skrzypek hearing protocol, which Dubois said was personally prepared by WrzoSek who conducted the interview. The dialogue suggested questions about how the protocol was drafted and whether it reflected a fair sequence of events.

From the perspective of a political dimension, Lewandowski argued that the public prosecutor should remain impartial in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure and the relevant laws. He questioned how impartiality could be maintained when the report cites the head of the opposition who has publicly opposed the prosecutor. He suggested that an investigation of this nature is undermined if participants openly display political views that color professional judgment, and he warned of harm to the prosecutor’s image if neutrality is not preserved.

Dubois responded that he did not know the political preferences of Ewa WrzoSek. He said he had seen her at demonstrations defending the courts and the Constitution, and he asserted that she acted against violations of constitutional principles. He stated he did not know who she supports politically but noted that she opposed the policies of the previous government in relation to constitutional breaches.

Dubois argued that his client’s case had waited years for justice and that WrzoSek had begun to take meaningful steps to address the issue. He affirmed his representation of Birgfellnyr in these matters and avoided making sweeping judgments about the entire system after six years of public exposure to a prosecutor who had at times kept the case quiet. The defense contended that objectivity remains possible even in a highly charged setting, pointing to the overall conduct observed during the hearings as evidence that a practitioner can remain fair without showing partiality toward any side.

The political views of the public prosecutor

The defense of WrzoSek, led by Dubois, presented a case for neutrality and argued that personal political views should not color prosecutorial duties. It was noted that WrzoSek had publicly supported a Civic Coalition candidate in the European Parliament race, which stirred debate about how political positioning affects perceived fairness in high profile investigations. Lewandowski recalled that in a prior case known as Two Towers, decisions were influenced by the prosecutors and judges associated with a certain circle of influence, underscoring concerns about objective judgment in sensitive matters.

The discussion raised the hypothetical question of whether a patron would want a prosecutor who openly endorses a political figure to oversee a case. The conclusion drawn by the speakers was that such a scenario would undermine trust and compromise the handling of the matter.

The Skrzypek case centered on the proxy who represented Skrzypek in the proceedings. The proxy did not seek a postponement, did not move to exclude the prosecutor, did not file complaints to block his participation, and did not request suspension. The exchange highlighted the complexities of representation and the ways in which procedural safeguards are applied in live investigations.

Dubois noted the sometimes tense atmosphere during the interrogation and referenced earlier moments when discussions about the interrogation prompted jokes at the prosecutor’s expense, a reminder that public perception can be shaped by the tone of dialogue as much as by the substance of legal action.

Also cited were broader implications of the Skrzypek case, including discussions about the content of the hearing and the broader political climate surrounding it. The conversation underscored the ongoing interest in how inquiries are conducted and whether due process is preserved in the face of intense public scrutiny.

In closing, the participants signaled that ongoing coverage may influence public opinion while stressing the need for careful adherence to legal norms and procedures in all future proceedings. The discourse emphasized that justice must be administered with clarity, fairness, and full documentation that stands up to scrutiny.

Citation: Polish media coverage