This chapter considers the criminal prosecution of Communist crimes in Poland. It specifically focuses on one of the most contentious issues in this area, namely cases concerning the maladministration of justice by judicial officials during Communist rule (1944-1989). The maladministration of justice refers to the misuse of the legal system in a manner that results in wrongful convictions, or miscarriages of justice. In other words, it concerns those who have been arrested on criminal charges, who have either pleaded guilty to the charges or have been found guilty, and who, notwithstanding their guilty plea or verdict, are actually innocent. This is sometimes discussed as judicial murder or court crime. The present assessment adds a much-needed dimension to the area of transitional criminal justice, in which the judiciary is an oft-neglected area. The discussion begins by outlining the theoretical framework into which key questions can be set. It then provides an overview of two periods, the Stalinist era (1944-1956) and martial law (1981-1983). These two periods are excellent examples of times in which judicial officials were involved in the maladministration of justice and have been the focus of relevant legislation seeking to redress documented injustices. My investigation identifies common themes with similar and opposite aims in which the judiciary was manipulated and controlled by the Polish authorities during the selected periods. The chapter concludes by critically analysing the measures undertaken in post-Communist Poland in order to redress such injustices.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

As noted in the Introduction to this volume, within the context of transitional criminal justice, prosecution and punishment are seen as necessary and desirable mainly for moral, legal and institutional reasons. According to Skaar:

Skaar goes on to identify four reasons for focusing on courts in transitional justice cases. First, the court is the ideal forum for hearing cases of human rights violations, in terms of its venue (open and impartial) and its goal of ensuring rights’ protection. Secondly, we can identify the key legal and political actors involved in the process.