As we reported on Thursday, the Warsaw District Court at the end of May legally convicted Radosław Gruca for violating bodily integrity and insulting a police officer. He upheld the ruling issued last autumn by the court of first instance, dismissing the appeals of the defendant and the prosecutor.
Gruca must pay PLN 4,000. PLN fine, PLN 1,000. PLN compensation to one of the police officers and coverage of the trial costs in both cases.
The verdict concerns an incident that occurred in the second half of July 2021. Immediately after its release, Radosław Gruca left OKO.press by mutual consent. He joined the editorial team at the end of 2021 ZET Radiowhere he writes texts for the website and is co-host of the podcast “Políticos Suspeitos”.
Radio ZET broadcaster takes no action regarding Gruca’s conviction
A final conviction in a criminal case will not have any professional consequences for Radosław Gruca. – We do not intend to take any action against Radek Gruca in connection with the incident that occurred several years ago, before he became a journalist for Radiozet.pl. It was a case that was widely known from media reports, and we already knew during recruitment that a trial was underway in which he was accused of violating the inviolability of a police officer and verbally insulting him – explains Łukasz Sawala, editor-in-chief of the Radio ZET portal, in response to questions from Wirtualnemedia.pl.
– What was important to me at that time – and still is – is that the act for which Radek was convicted does not in any way undermine his credibility as a journalist or professional competence. This event occurred in 2021, in private time and was not related to journalistic work – he points out.
Sawala emphasizes that during almost three years of his presence in the editorial office, Radosław Gruca “worked diligently and conducted many socially important journalistic investigations”. – Thanks to him, many political scandals involving high-ranking figures behind the scenes came to light. He never betrayed my trust or that of our editorial team. That is why we will continue to cooperate, and Radek Gruca will be co-host of the “Suspicious Politicians” podcast, – he emphasizes.
>>> Praca.Wirtualnemedia.pl – thousands of media and marketing ads
Neither Eurozet nor Agora, which recently acquired the remaining shares in the broadcaster, have any strict procedures in place in such situations. – There are no special rules of conduct for people convicted of crimes under the Criminal Code. Each case is different and requires an individual approach – Agora’s press office told us.
Najsztub stayed on TOK FM, Kraśko on TVN
In the fall of 2017, Piotr Najsztub continued his cooperation with Agora-owned Radio TOK FM after hearing a prosecutor’s accusation of assaulting a 77-year-old woman. It turned out that the journalist had no driving license, no valid civil liability insurance, and no vehicle inspection.
– I was accused of an unintentional act, but there is a difference – Najsztub explained. Two years later, he was acquitted in the second instance.
In turn, Piotr Kraśko from “Fakty” TVN in the fall of 2022 was sentenced by the District Court to a fine of PLN 100,000 for driving a car in 2016 despite not having a driving license.
However, in mid-2022, TVP Info revealed that Kraśko did not submit tax returns PIT 36L and 37 and VAT-7 declarations on time for the years 2012-2017 (in this case, for the years 2012-2016). The tax office estimated that he earned more than PLN 700,000 from his full-time job at Telewizja Polska (the journalist worked there until January 2016). Revenues from the business activity he has been engaged in since 2008 could have reached PLN 2.8 million.
After receiving a reminder from the tax office, the TVN journalist quickly paid the outstanding taxes with interest (more than PLN 760,000). He also submitted additional invoices that he issued during the period under review. In total, he transferred PLN 850,000 to the tax office. zloty. After the case was revealed, Kraśko assured in an Instagram post that “all tax issues were clarified at the Tax Office 5 years ago”.
What was Radosław Gruca convicted of?
Radosław Gruca’s conviction concerns an incident that occurred in Warsaw at night in the second half of July 2021. As reported at the time by the TVP.info and wPolityce.pl portals, Gruca got into a fight with one of the police officers who intervened against him. The officers took action because they noticed that a man with unsteady steps was trying to move the car.
The court did not believe the allegations of several police officers called as witnesses that the content of the statements of the officers who intervened against Radosław Gruca was inspired by their superiors. – None of the witnesses interviewed provided information that could even substantiate the categorical statements of the State Police (this is one of the witnesses – note) about the manipulation of evidence. that is, the content of the witness statements and the official note from the management of the Police Station or Police Precinct (Capital Police Headquarters or Police Precinct – note) – we read in the justification for the trial.
According to the court, the police’s intervention against Gruca when he got into the car was justified because, in their opinion, the journalist was behaving as if he was drunk. – In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the circumstances of the case clearly indicate that he was significantly drunk. What caught the police’s attention was the way the accused moved, which was typical of drunk people. After all, if the accused had been walking straight, the police would not have noticed him and would not have contacted him the first time. Furthermore, if the conclusions drawn from this first conversation had not confirmed their belief that he was a drunk person, they would not have withdrawn to react to the fact that the person they had just spoken to had taken their seat in the car. The defendant himself did not question the origin of the event, he claimed.
– It is even more possible because the intervention took place around 3 am, when the defendant was returning from the so-called anniversary of the post where he worked at the time and he himself admitted that he drank alcohol at that time – marked.
– As the court of merit rightly highlighted, leading a thorough argument in this regard, not questioned at any time by the defense attorney, it was the duty of the police to react when they saw a drunk person getting into a car alone in the middle of the night, especially when the vehicle’s lights came on. The beginning of the intervention did not involve removing the defendant from the vehicle through direct coercion. The police officer approached the car door and ordered the defendant to exit the vehicle. In doing so, he behaved appropriately to the situation that required explanation. It was the defendant who reacted aggressively to this order, which was fully justified in the circumstances. – described.
It was noted that Radosław Gruca did not agree to the breathalyzer test. – However, it should be noted that there was an attempt to carry out such a test and for this purpose a police vehicle equipped with a device allowing this was called to the scene. The defendant refused to take a test that would have immediately answered the question about his sobriety. If the result of such a measurement raised objections on the part of the accused, he could have demanded blood tests. However, the defendant made a different decision and started demanding blood tests, which was not required under the circumstances, he said.
The court also did not agree with the argument of Radosław Gruca’s defense lawyer that, as an experienced journalist, he could not have violated the law while under the influence of alcohol.. It was noted that this was “just the defense attorney’s claim that is not supported by life experience.”
– This proves that from time to time well-known and respected people commit mischief that does not befit their social position, and this often happens under the influence of alcohol. Furthermore, the statements of the police officers do not indicate that when they intervened against the defendant they knew his place of work and identity, or that he had just left an event organized by (…) – the justification stated.
It was stressed that the officers’ intervention in relation to Gruca was standard. – The court assessed as manipulation the defense attorney’s statement that at least four police officers participated in the intervention against the defendant. His unquestionable testimony in this regard clearly shows that only two officers carried out the intervention, the other two being seated in the police car, being merely accidental bystanders – it was described.
– There was nothing special about the arrival of subsequent police cars at the scene. One of them came because it was equipped with a mobile device to measure the level of alcohol in exhaled air. The second was to transport the accused to the police station after he was arrested. – added.
