R v Monika Solarska

In sentencing for perverting the course of justice, the court should assess the seriousness of the substantive offence, the persistence of the interference, and its effect on the interests of justice. The sentence should bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the gravity of the principal offending. A prolonged, planned and sophisticated attempt to conceal a killing, especially one which nearly succeeds and compounds the harm to the deceased’s family, can justify a sentence at the upper end of the range. Comparisons with sentences in materially different cases provide limited assistance.

R v Monika Solarska was an appeal against a sentence of five years and six months’ imprisonment for doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice.

Following the killing of Tomasz Dembler, the appellant assisted an elaborate cover-up. The sentencing judge found that, knowing of the killing, she helped with transporting the body, arrangements for its burial, and the cleansing of the vehicles and house. The cover-up continued for at least two days and nearly prevented discovery of the killing.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the murder trial after the indictment was amended. She contended that the notional sentence after trial was manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether the sentence was just and proportionate for her role in the cover-up.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of five years and six months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. It was just and proportionate.
2. For perverting the course of justice, the court should apply the three principal considerations identified in R v Tunney [2006] EWCA Crim. 2066 and Attorney General's Reference No 16 of 2009 (Yates) [2010] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 11: the seriousness of the substantive offence, the persistence of the criminal conduct, and its effect on the interests of justice. The gravity of the principal offence should produce a sentence for the interference with justice that bears a reasonable relationship of proportionality to it.
3. The judge was entitled to treat the underlying manslaughter, an assault falling only just short of murder, as exceptionally serious. The appellant had a leading role in a prolonged, elaborate and sophisticated attempt by five people to erase all traces of the killing. Her conduct extended beyond a brief or spontaneous act of assistance. It very nearly defeated justice and increased the suffering of the deceased’s family.
4. The judge had properly considered R v Amin [2014] EWCA Crim. 1924 without giving it undue weight. The authorities relied on by the appellant, Munday [2003] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 118 and Gale [2018] EWCA Crim. 120, were of limited assistance because their circumstances differed materially.
5. The appellant’s previous good character had been taken into account. There was no other feature of the offending or its circumstances which reduced her culpability.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appellant’s appeal against sentence: [2022] EWCA Crim 1732.
• Crown Court at Teesside — following a guilty plea to perverting the course of justice, sentenced the appellant on 8 April 2022 to five years and six months’ imprisonment.