R v Andrzej Kolecki

In fixing a life sentence’s minimum term for murder, significant planning or premeditation remains a statutory aggravating feature only where the planning is genuinely significant; the qualifying adjective must not be diluted. Planning may be established by recruiting another person, travelling to the victim’s location with an intention to cause serious harm, and preparing to record the attack. Knowledge that a weapon will be readily available at the scene may also materially aggravate the offence, even though the weapon was not taken there. Prolonged and severe physical suffering is a serious aggravating feature. It may justify substantial uplift independently of a particular act, such as the use of boiling water, in which the offender did not personally participate. A minimum term is not manifestly excessive merely because the offender may spend most or all of the remaining life in custody.

The applicant was convicted after a three-week trial of murdering Rafal Zabiecki and assaulting Wojciech Piekarski, and was sentenced by HHJ Bourne KC at the Central Criminal Court. The sentencing judge selected a 15-year starting point under Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020, identified aggravating and mitigating features, and imposed a minimum term of 19 years, less time spent on remand. The assault sentence of two years ran concurrently.

A single judge refused permission to appeal. The applicant renewed his application, challenging the findings of significant planning or premeditation and serious physical suffering, particularly because he said he had not personally used the boiling water.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. The 19-year minimum term was not manifestly excessive.

1. Planning and premeditation. The absence of premeditation is a statutory mitigating factor, while premeditation alone is not aggravating. The word “significant” must retain its proper force. The sentencing judge had not diluted that requirement. The applicant recruited a younger and stronger man, spent about three hours with him before the offence, travelled for an hour or more to the victim’s address intending to inflict serious harm, and prepared to film the attack.
2. Readily available weapon. Knowledge that a loose table leg was present at the address was materially relevant to planning. Although no weapon was taken to the scene, that fact meant that the statutory starting point was 15 years rather than 25 years. It did not prevent a significant increase from the 15-year starting point.
3. Physical suffering. The deceased suffered prolonged and severe injuries. Even without the boiling water, the sentencing judge was entitled to treat the intense physical suffering as a serious aggravating factor.
4. The applicant’s possible age at release, or the possibility of spending the rest of his life in custody, reflected the seriousness of the crime and did not make the sentence manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The single judge refused permission to appeal. The renewed application was refused.
• Central Criminal Court: HHJ Bourne KC imposed life imprisonment with a 19-year minimum term for murder and two years’ concurrent imprisonment for assault.