Samuel Pereira violated the personal rights of KO MP Krzysztof Brejza. The head of TVP Info also included the court’s justification for the verdict in which he had previously lost to prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek.
Dorota Brejza, who is Krzysztof Brejza’s representative and privately the wife of the KO MP, informed on social media about the violation of Brejza’s personal rights by Samuel Pereira. These are articles on TVP Info that appeared in the 2019 parliamentary campaign, which suggested the involvement of the then head of the Civic Platform campaign in the invoice scandal.
“With his actions, he violated the standards of journalistic work, including reliable information and acting in accordance with journalistic ethics, to which he was also obliged. He did not exercise diligence and reliability in collecting and using the obtained materials,” reads an excerpt from the court’s justification.
Reasoning of the court in the case of Krzysztof Brejza versus Samuel Pereira
“It is impossible to justify the defendant’s action as being intended to defend a legitimate social interest. The social interest does not consist in formulating false allegations against other people, under the guise of informing the public about detected irregularities,” we read further.
In another case, at the beginning of October, the District Court found Samuel Pereira guilty of defaming prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek. Therefore, he was sentenced to restriction of liberty, which consists in performing socially useful work for three months, 30 hours a month. In the first instance, the case was discontinued, but the District Court ordered it to be reconsidered.
The head of TVP Info lost the trial against Ewa Wrzosek. He published the justification for the judgment
On Friday, November 24, Pereira published excerpts from the justification of the verdict. The judge found the explanations of the head of TVP Info “illogical, inconsistent with life experience and other credible evidence.” “In the opinion of the Court, there is no doubt that the entry concerned the injured party Ewa Wrzosek, because at the time of the entry ‘there was a debate on the Pegasus remote surveillance system’,” Pereira revealed.
The judge concluded that the entry must have been about the prosecutor because “it was commented on vividly and immediately linked to the injured party.” “It should be considered that despite the imprecise indication of the person, the person could be identified on the basis of the accompanying circumstances,” the judge argued. The public television employee “did not deny during the discussion that the entry concerned Wrzosek” and, additionally, “there was no other discussion about remote surveillance at that time.”