Back

Almost three years’ imprisonment for a crime he did not commit – and reforms to protect liberty

Leszczak v. Poland  | 2006

Almost three years’ imprisonment for a crime he did not commit – and reforms to protect liberty

… the grounds given for the applicant’s pre-trial detention were not “sufficient” and “relevant” to justify holding him in custody for over 2 years and 10 months …

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, March 2006

Background

Wrongfully accused of murder and attempted burglary, Andrzej Leszczak was detained for almost three years before he was finally acquitted. He continually protested his innocence and insisted that he would attend trial, but his requests to be released before his trial were refused.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The European court ruled that the Polish authorities had not given proper reasons for holding Mr Leszczak for over two years and ten months. His applications for release had not been properly assessed. In particular, other methods had not been explored for making sure the he attended his trial. This meant that Mr Leszczak had been detained for almost three years in circumstances that violated his right to liberty.

Follow-up

Following a series of similar cases, Poland made extensive reforms that led to a massive reduction in violations of the right to liberty in Poland. The reforms included:

  • Measures to increase the use of alternatives to pre-trial detention in appropriate cases;
  • Legal changes to introduce maximum periods of pre-trial detention and improve decision-making about when pre-trial detention in necessary;
  • Training of judges and prosecutors on the protection of the right to liberty.

Related examples

Man given 3 months’ detention for a crime he didn’t commit - and reforms to protect the right to liberty

Locked in a windowless cell, I. I. spent 3 months in pre-trial detention for a crime he did not commit. After he developed various illnesses, the charges against I.I. were dropped because of a lack of evidence and he was released. Following a series of similar cases, the law in Bulgaria was changed to protect people’s right to liberty.

Read more

Arbitrary detention in psychiatric hospital leads to reforms to protect liberty

Frits Winterwerp was detained in a psychiatric hospital. He said that he was not mentally ill and he should be released. However, he was repeatedly prevented from making his case in the Dutch courts, which kept extending his detention without hearing from him. The European court ruled this had violated his right to liberty. Reforms were made to protect people in Mr Winterwerp’s situation.

Read more

Legal reforms after innocent hotel director was jailed for 14 months without proper evidence

Hotel director Juozas Jėčius was held for over 14 months whilst awaiting trial for murder. However, there had never been any proper evidence against him, and he was acquitted at trial. The Strasbourg court ruled that Mr Jėčius’ incarceration had violated his right to liberty. Following the Court’s judgment, new measures were introduced to help avoid unjustified detention.

Read more

Reforms to prevent detention without a court’s permission

Allar Harkmann was arrested and detained, without a court hearing his case or examining the legality of his detention. He was only released after 15 days. The Strasbourg court ruled that the failure to have Mr Harkmann’s detention promptly reviewed by a judge, and the lack of any opportunity for him to obtain compensation, had violated his right to liberty.

Read more

Woman’s 4-year detention without trial leads to freedom protections

Josette Prencipe was in her mid-sixties when she was arrested and detained for almost 4 years, without facing trial. She was accused of making illegal bank transfers. The Strasbourg court ruled that the authorities had breached Mrs Prencipe’s right to liberty. The case triggered a series of reforms, including a new time limit on pre-trial detention.

Read more