BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Kolecki, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 714 (21 May 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/714.html
Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 714

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCA Crim 714
CASE NO 202400723/A3

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
HHJ BOURNE KC T20237034

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
21 May 2025

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE FRASER
MR JUSTICE HILLIARD
MR JUSTICE CONSTABLE

____________________

REX

- v -

ANDRZEJ KOLECKI

____________________

Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

MR C BLAXLAND KC appeared on behalf of the Applicant
____________________

HTML VERSION OF APPROVED JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

  1. MR JUSTICE CONSTABLE: The applicant renews his application for permission to appeal against the minimum term imposed when sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Rafal Zabiecki and an assault occasioning actual bodily harm on Wojciech Piekarski following a three week trial. The minimum term imposed for murder was 19 years' imprisonment, less the time spent on remand. The applicant was sentenced to two years for the assault to run concurrently. Leave to appeal was refused by the single judge. We have been greatly assisted by the written and oral submissions of Mr Blaxland KC.
  2. The facts

  3. On 20 February 2023 the applicant, then aged 61, and Jakub Molga, the applicant's co-defendant then aged 26, shared a bottle of vodka at the applicant's home before travelling to an address belonging to Mr Burcynzski in Pinner at which they knew Mr Zabiecki was staying. Mr Piekarski was also there. The applicant and Mr Molga had planned to go there to attack Mr Zabiecki in revenge for an earlier attack upon the applicant that is said to have taken place in Alexandra Park in Harrow.
  4. When they arrived Mr Molga gave the applicant his mobile telephone before both men entered the property. The applicant then recorded the first 10 minutes of what took place thereafter. When Mr Piekarski opened the door the applicant and Mr Molga entered straightaway and the attack against Mr Zabiecki began almost immediately.
  5. Mr Molga went straight to grab a table leg which he knew was loose from a previous visit to the property and he used it to assault Mr Zabiecki who had been asleep in the lounge, whilst the applicant filmed it. Encouraged by the applicant, Mr Molga struck the deceased on the leg with the table leg with such force that the table leg broke. Mr Molga armed himself then with a longer, stronger piece of wood which he used to strike the deceased with severe force. When Mr Piekarski attempted to go to the aid of Mr Zabiecki, he too was assaulted.
  6. The applicant and Mr Molga remained in the flat for a further 45 minutes. During that time Mr Molga continued to attack the deceased, this included Mr Molga boiling a kettle and pouring scalding water on his legs.
  7. The applicant and Mr Molga then left the flat and returned to their respective homes. Within minutes Mr Molga texted his partner to say that he had done something really bad and needed cold water to wash blood from his clothes. An hour after the applicant and Mr Molga left the flat, Mr Piekarski telephoned 999. Police found significant amounts of blood in the lounge and splatter patterns on the wall.
  8. A post-mortem was conducted. The deceased had internal bruising and fractured bones in nine different areas of the body, including multiple fractures to the bones of both legs, to his right arm above the elbow, to the bones of his left arm near the wrist, to his jaw bone and to one of his ribs. Several of the fractures were comminuted, i.e. broken in two or more places. There were massive areas of external and internal bruising and scalding to the left leg. The cause of death was multiple blunt force trauma.
  9. The applicant and Mr Molga were arrested. In his police interview the applicant blamed Mr Molga but at trial he admitted that it had been his idea to attack Mr Zabiecki in revenge for having previously been attacked himself. He said that after being attacked in the park he had sustained a fractured pelvis and bladder damage and he had been hospitalised for two weeks. At the trial the applicant said that he knew the deceased would be beaten by Mr Molga but denied taking any part in the attack himself.
  10. The sentence

  11. The judge identified the appropriate starting point for determining the minimum term under schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020 as 15 years. He then proceeded to sentence on the basis that the following aggravating features were present in the commission of the offence:
  12. 1. There was significant planning and premeditation and although no weapons were taken to the scene, there was knowledge that there were weapons at the address.

    2. The physical suffering endured by the deceased. He emphasised the use of boiling water as being a significant aggravating feature.

    3. The planning of the attack with the intention of humiliation.

    4. The assault on Mr Piekarski.

    5. The consumption of alcohol.

  13. The judge then identified the following mitigating features:
  14. 1. The blows to the deceased were delivered in the main to the deceased's lower limbs rather than his head.

    2. The intention was to cause really serious injury rather than death.

    3. The applicant had no relevant previous convictions and had expressed remorse.

    4. The applicant had suffered from a brain injury and depression. The sentence imposed would mean that he would spend a significant portion of his remaining life, if not all of his remaining life, in custody.

  15. The judge, after taking account of these aggravating and mitigating features, when considering the overall offending, including the separate assault, imposed the minimum term of 19 years, less the time the applicant had spent on remand.
  16. Grounds of appeal

  17. In his helpful written submissions supplemented orally today, Mr Blaxland argued, first, that the sentencing judge fell into error in deciding that the statutory aggravating feature of significant planning and premeditation was present. He submitted that such premeditation as there was took place during a drunken discussion some two hours before the commission of the offence, that no weapons were taken to the scene, and that in the applicant's case there was no basis for the conclusion that it was known to him that there were weapons at the address which would be used.
  18. The starting point is, as Mr Blaxland rightly submitted, that the lack of premeditation is deemed to be a statutory mitigating factor and premeditation on its own is not an aggravating factor. The qualifying adjective 'significant' should not therefore be diluted.
  19. However, we do not consider that the sentencing judge's approach did dilute that qualifying adjective. As the single judge concluded when refusing permission, the sentencing judge was entitled to find that the offences included a significant degree of planning and/or premeditation. The applicant had recruited Mr Molga, who was a younger and stronger man, to carry out the attack as revenge for the earlier assault upon him. The two men spent approximately three hours together immediately before the attack, including travelling for an hour or more across London to the address where the victim was staying, with the specific intention of inflicting serious harm on him when he would otherwise have considered himself safe in the house of his friend. The attack began very soon after the applicant and Mr Molga arrived at the address and before entering the property the applicant prepared to film the attack on Mr Molga's phone.
  20. Further, the judge who had benefit of presiding over the trial, did not distinguish between the applicant and Mr Molga in the context of knowledge of the presence of a potential weapon to use at the victim's address, namely the table leg that was known to have been loose from a previous visit to the property. That knowledge is of particular significance in the context of planning. Whilst the fact that a weapon was not taken to the scene means that the statutory starting point is 15 years rather than 25 years, the judge's finding that the use of a readily available weapon was a premeditated aspect of the offending justified a significant increase in the 15-year starting point.
  21. The applicant's second ground is that in identifying the aggravating feature of physical suffering, the judge referred to the use of boiling water. It is said that the applicant took no part in that and there was no evidence that the use of boiling water was a part of the joint enterprise.
  22. The difficulty with this submission is that on any view the suffering of the deceased was prolonged and severe. The film of the first 10 minutes of the attack taken by the applicant confirms the sustained brutality involved. The victim was found to have had multiple fractures to both legs, to both arms, to his jawbone and to one of his ribs. Several of the fractures were comminuted. There were also massive areas of internal and external bruising and lacerations. The sentencing judge was satisfied that the attack continued after the filming stopped and he was well-placed to assess the applicant's overall involvement. Even without the use of boiling water, the judge would have been entitled to treat the intense physical suffering of the deceased as a serious aggravating factor.
  23. Whilst therefore Mr Blaxland submitted that the correct minimum term was the starting point of 15 years, we do not consider this to be reasonably arguable for the reasons we have given. It is right that the term of 19 years means that the applicant, if he survives, will be 82 years old before he is eligible for release. However, this is the consequence of the seriousness of the applicant's crime, not the result of a manifestly excessive sentence. In these circumstances the renewed application is refused.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010