R v Joshua Kerr
[2023] EWCA Crim 212
R v Sylwester Kawalec
17 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 939
Court of Appeal
Kawalec was found guilty of murder and given a life sentence with a minimum of 22 years. He appealed, but the judges said the sentence was fair. However, they found a mistake in calculating the sentence, which reduced it by a few months.
Key Facts
- •Sylwester Kawalec was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 22 years for murder and a concurrent 7-year sentence for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice on 24 May 2013.
- •The murder involved the stabbing of Piotr Kulinski on 14 October 2012.
- •Kawalec's role was assisting Zygner, who stabbed Kulinski.
- •Kawalec's appeal was significantly delayed (nearly 10 years).
- •Kawalec's defense at trial was that he acted in defense of Zygner.
- •The sentencing judge considered Kawalec's lack of intent to kill, mitigating factors (good character, past abuse by victim), and aggravating features (planning, conspiracy to pervert justice).
- •The Court of Appeal found the minimum term was incorrectly calculated, failing to account for pre-conviction remand time.
Legal Principles
A sentence is manifestly excessive if it is unreasonably high given the circumstances of the case.
Case Law
In appeals against sentence, the Court of Appeal cannot overturn a jury's verdict.
Case Law
The minimum term in a life sentence must be calculated correctly, including time served on remand. Failure to do so renders the sentence unlawful.
R v Cookson and R v Sesay (cited in this case)
The sentencing judge's interpretation of the jury's verdict is given significant weight.
Case Law
Outcomes
Leave to appeal against sentence granted out of time.
The minimum term was incorrectly calculated, failing to deduct pre-conviction remand time.
Appeal allowed in part.
The minimum term was corrected to reflect the time spent on remand (21 years and 148 days).
Appeal dismissed on all other grounds.
The sentence was not manifestly excessive given the judge's consideration of all relevant factors. The jury's verdict is final on the issue of the defense's merits.