Controversy Surrounding a Warsaw Judge and a High‑Profile Police Incident
A judge from the Warsaw‑Śródmieście District Court, Tomasz Trębicki, issued a decision that led to the detention of ministers Kamiński and Wąsik. Trębicki is a recognized figure in judicial circles, and his career has been marked by high‑profile cases connected to public demonstrations and police activity. One notable case involved Michał Modlinger, who confronted police officers near the presidential palace in July 2018. In a subsequent ruling, the judge described Modlinger’s aggressive actions as unintentional, a description that drew considerable attention and debate.
Additional coverage emphasized a claim by police officials that there was no arrest warrant at that time for Kamiński and Wąsik, with officials indicating that the needed document would be prepared and delivered to the relevant authorities in Warsaw’s VII Headquarters. This framing underscored tensions between law enforcement procedures and judicial decisions during a period of public scrutiny.
During the summer of 2018 a pronounced clash unfolded, widely captured on video. The footage shows Michał Modlinger raising his voice at police and shouting a well‑known chant associated with the era, and it also depicts him engaging physically with officers. The recording became a focal point in discussions about accountability and the appropriate use of force in demonstrations.
Modlinger remained out of sight for several days after his appearances near the presidential residence, eventually being questioned and charged with violence for attacking police officers. He appeared before the court where the judge Torbicki delivered an acquittal, framing Modlinger’s conduct as unintentional in the context of a charged public confrontation.
Context on the acquittal
Beyond the legal outcome, observers noted the personal connections involved. The individual acquitted by the court was described as the son of a prominent public figure with a long history in media and government communications. The family background includes leadership roles at a major national broadcaster and involvement in political editorial work, as well as earlier recognition from state authorities. The broader family history features individuals who played significant roles within state institutions, and it has been a point of discussion in analyses of the case and its implications for public trust in the judiciary.
The discussion around these events reflects ongoing debates about judicial independence, the boundaries of protest, and the processes used to resolve conflicts between public officials, law enforcement, and citizens. Analysts emphasize the importance of transparent procedures, consistent legal standards, and careful consideration of context in cases involving violence or disruption near state institutions.
In researching these events, several sources were consulted to provide a balanced understanding of the sequence of actions, court decisions, and the responses from different branches of government and media outlets. The aim is to present a clear narrative of what occurred, how decisions were reached, and the lasting questions that continue to shape perceptions of justice and accountability in a modern state.
Note: This summary reflects publicly reported information and does not rely on any single source. Attributions are provided to indicate origin for readers seeking further context and verification.