Slaughter of goat in Wałbrzych — prosecutor changes position without clear explanation
Three foreign nationals slaughtered a goat behind a bar in Wałbrzych. The prosecutor's office sent charges to court, then applied for conditional discontinuation of proceedings — without transparent explanation of the reasons for the change.
Change in prosecution strategy without clarification of facts
In December 2025, an incident occurred in Wałbrzych in which three foreign nationals — two citizens of Bangladesh and a citizen of India — were involved in killing a goat behind a restaurant premises. According to media reports, the animal's throat was cut, and its meat was intended for consumption. Police were notified of the incident.
The suspects explained that in their countries of origin, such a method of killing animals is a normal procedure. Defenders of the two Bangladeshi citizens argued that the perpetrators were not aware of violating Polish regulations, citing cultural differences. The District Prosecutor's Office in Wałbrzych sent an indictment to the court concerning the illegal slaughter of an animal.
As reported by Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, on 17 September 2026, the District Court in Wałbrzych returned the indictment to the prosecutor's office due to formal defects. Following this return, the prosecutor changed course — instead of correcting the defects and re-submitting the indictment, it filed a request for conditional discontinuation of proceedings against all three suspects.
Argument of low social harmfulness without details
Prosecutor Mariusz Pindera, spokesperson for the District Prosecutor's Office in Świdnica, justified the decision by citing "relatively low social harmfulness of the act". The public justification also included an argument concerning the costs of conducting proceedings and the time the court would have to devote to hearing the case. Pindera denied that the suspects' unfamiliarity with Polish law was the basis for the request.
The prosecutor's decision raises, however, questions concerning the transparency of the procedure. Advocates Karol Pachnik and Grzegorz Prigan — commenting on the case for Dziennik Gazeta Prawna — point out that a change in procedural position requires explanation. If the prosecutor originally concluded that the act justified filing an indictment, and later determined that the social harmfulness of the act is low — what changed?
Statutory criteria for assessment of social harmfulness
The Penal Code (art. 115 § 2) establishes specific criteria for assessing the social harmfulness of an act: the type and nature of the violated good, the extent of the harm caused, the manner and circumstances of the commission of the act, the gravity of the violated duties, the form of intent, and the motive of the perpetrator.
In the context of illegal animal slaughter, these criteria require investigation of such facts as: whether the goat was previously stunned, whether the manner of its killing complies with regulations, whether the animal suffered, what the specific circumstances and motive of the perpetrators were. The mere fact that the meat was intended for consumption does not automatically justify a finding that the social harmfulness is low.
Article 35 of the Animal Protection Act provides for criminal liability for slaughter of an animal in violation of specified regulations — a typical offence punishable by imprisonment of up to three years. The legislator permits the slaughter of farm animals, but only under conditions strictly specified in veterinary regulations.
Problem with justification of the decision
Pursuant to art. 66 § 1 of the Penal Code, a court may conditionally discontinue proceedings if the social harmfulness of the act is not significant, the circumstances of its commission raise no doubts, and the perpetrator's hitherto way of life and conduct, being an innocent party, justify a positive criminological prognosis. The Code does not, however, provide for the costs of proceedings or court congestion as a prerequisite for conditional discontinuation.
Advocates Pachnik and Prigan emphasise that although procedural economics has significance, the efficiency of proceedings cannot replace statutory prerequisites of criminal liability. What remains unexplained is what exactly prompted the change in the prosecutor's strategy — whether new evidence emerged, the legal qualification was changed, or the same factual material was re-evaluated from a different angle.
The lack of transparent explanation undermines confidence in the consistency of action by prosecution authorities, particularly since the case concerns an act which the legislator deliberately brought within the scope of criminal liability.
Source: Dziennik Gazeta Prawna