Can this woman appeal? How can we help her?

[TERF4Life]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/09/uk-woman-loses-jail-term-appeal-after-killing-man-as-he-sexually-assaulted-her

Can any legal bods tell me if this lady can appeal any further? If not, is there any other way of helping her legally? Quite a few of us on FWR want to do something!

If she’d killed him with her bare hands she may have got off on reasonable self defence. Carrying a knife is a crime in this country and killing someone with a knife shows pre-meditation so her prospects are probably not good (caveat: I’m not a criminal lawyer).

Awful situation.

When a person is attacked by someone carrying a knife, it's a common argument that the only reason the knife was being carried was to do serious harm, which most people would agree with.

Her argument in the original trial was quite weak - IIRC it was found that she produced the knife and threatened him with it while they were arguing, after he had assaulted her by grabbing her breasts, then stabbed him in a fit of anger. She said she had forgotten she was holding the knife and had simply meant to punch him (in the chest)...which makes little sense.

Self defense does allow someone to strike first if they feel threatened, however their actions have to be reasonable and proportionate.

Had she punched him, and he subsequently hit his head and died, the outcome may have been different. Had she come across the knife in the footwell of the car while she was being assaulted and lashed out at him with it during the assault because she feared for her life, the outcome may have been different. It may not.

I think - in terms of law - it's probably correct that her defense of 'self defence' wasn't accepted. In terms of her most recent appeal against her sentence, the starting point had already been reduced by eight years in mitigation. A judge in view of all the facts (the key ones being her own admission that her previous rape complaint was not accurate and that the encounter had been consensual) found that he could not mitigate further on the basis of the alleged rape. Again, in law, this seems to be correct.

I doubt she will have grounds to appeal further successfully. This will go down as another terrible conflict of what is morally right, and what is legally permissable.

The only saving grace is that (assuming she keeps her nose clean in prison) she will still be a young woman by the time she is released, and can hopefully go on to lead a meaningful life.

She could only appeal to the Supreme Court if the Court of Appeal certified that there was a point of law of general public importance involved in their decision. I don't think there was, so there is no further appeal available.

The judge has come a long way down from the starting point for sentencing. She carried a knife to the scene of the crime and used it. As she was 18 when she was sentenced, that means the starting point for sentencing was 25 years. If she had not carried the knife or had not used it, the starting point would have been 15 years.

I should add that it is possible to have the case referred back to the Court of Appeal via the CCRC, but that seems unlikely in this case.

I think that would set a terrible precedent. That it’s okay to carry a knife round for ‘self defence’ and stab someone to death, that you’ll get away with it even if the the other person didn’t have a weapon nor was your life in danger.

Aside from the implications for this woman, this story has worried me for personal reasons.

I carry a Swiss army penknife key ring with me when I walk the dog. I walk him in rural areas in the daytime, but I also walk him in the village at night. I bought it on Amazon after Sarah Everard and, from my research at the time, understood it to be legal. I have my front door key on it.

Am I legally allowed to use it if I’m attacked?

Provided the longest blade on that knife is no more than 3 inches long, you are not committing any offence by carrying it. You are allowed to defend yourself if attacked. You can use reasonable force to defend yourself if attacked. The law accepts that, when acting in the heat of the moment, you may go beyond the minimum necessary force.

If you injured or killed someone with that knife and were charged, it would be up to the jury to decide whether you acted in self-defence.

Thank you @prh47bridge. I thought that was the case. I shall keep it with me.

Perhaps her knife was much bigger.

She was carrying a knife. No.

I’m astounded that people think carrying a knife is ok. It’s just not, regardless of the sex of the stabbed. Imagine if she was side eyed and got into a row ? Seriously, carrying a knife is not a good idea. Ever.

Personally, I think all women should be allowed to carry any weapon they like.
Laws always favour males...how many men get let off with pathetic sentences for murdering and raping women. I think this girl should have received a 17 month sentence. She was only 18...The police are never there when you're attacked...and in Europe women are allowed to carry mace. The law is biased against women at every level. But punishes those who dare defend themselves. All girls need self defence lessons as part of their education.
I would support a crowd fund to help Martyna once she's released...

Contrary to popular myth, carrying mace is an offence in many European countries. Even where it is allowed, a license may be needed and the process to get a license is extremely rigorous in some countries.

I do not agree that we should allow women to carry any weapon they want.

This girl was not punished for defending herself. If the jury agreed that she had acted in self-defence, she would have been found not guilty of murder (although she may still have been convicted of carrying a knife). However, having heard all the evidence in a trial that lasted over 2 weeks, not just the brief details that have been published on the internet, the jury decided that she was not acting in self-defence.

Are you a man by any chance..."We should not allow women to carry any weapon they want"...sounds very Talibanish. The strength disparity between a teenager and a man are huge...should she have let herself be raped and possibly killed?. I'm glad she got rid of this scrote. If the law was fair to murder and rape victims and the there was a level playing field for punishments for murder this case wouldn't be so glaringly unjust. But men have been let off with comparatively light sentences...using the nagging or unfaithfulness and both judges and juries are often biased. I used to carry a knife...and I know for certain that I'm only alive because of it. My dad said it was best to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Our legal system is inherently misogynistic...

Your justification is similar to the gun lobby in America who think everyone should be allowed to carry a concealed gun. By all means carry legal means of defence, but don't promote the idea that women should all arm themselves with knives or whatever.

Nagging and unfaithfulness will not result in a murder charge being reduced to manslaughter, nor will it result in a reduced sentence. That isn't how the law works.

And to say again, the jury in this case, after hearing all the evidence, decided that she did not kill in self-defence. She killed out of anger using a knife she had brought with her.

This woman stabbed him through the heart. It takes a helluva blow to stab someone in the heart.

He wasn’t a random attacker that jumped her in a car park. It was someone she willingly got into a car with that she’d met before. She willingly got into the backseat with him, whilst keeping the knife with her. It looks very likely that he intended to have sex with her regardless of her consent but it also looks like she intended to harm/kill him.

The law is an ass with regard to violent crime. There's no consistency at all. I agree with the gun lobby to a certain extent...just not with the right to buy automatic weapons. I think the law is terrified that if they give light sentences to women who kill men who assault them, it will be a free for all for vengeance. But this girl did a favour for us all. She's not a threat to the public.
I do believe in capital punishment for heinous crimes...it would save the state alot of money. I don't support Trump or the far right. But I'm sick of the female holocaust where the police go after hate speech against pc approved minorities and ignore the epidemic of VAWG.
I'm sick of legal systems that make excuses for misogyny. The law is not applied in an equal way. She killed out of anger...good.

So it was premeditated murder? so not sure what grounds for the appeal but anything is possible

I couldn't agree more and that poor woman - men get away with murder and the law turns a blind eye.

Scum-bags like him deserve it....

The law is an ass with regard to violent crime. There's no consistency at all.

When people are consistent, the law will follow.

And I’m fucking astounded that given her appalling trauma you can’t muster the slightest sympathy for a woman who was being violently assaulted. No, she shouldn’t have been carrying a knife and there should be consequences for that but as far as I’m concerned that arsehole brought it on himself. Seventeen years is far to harsh.You can tell the vast majority of posters here have had the luxury of not being raped unlike some of us.

It's almost as if two wrongs don't make a right

"It's almost as if two wrongs don't make a right"

Yep, and because of that reasoning men continue to rape and abuse women freely, essentially consequence free.

The message is louder and clearer than ever.
We are scared of being attacked, when we are the perpetrators rarely get convicted, IF they are they get minuscule sentences.
And now if we fight back and something bad happens we get in a lot of trouble and a much longer sentence.

To say yet again, the woman in this case was convicted because the jury decided that she was not acting in self-defence. She was killing out of anger. If the jury had accepted that she was acting in self-defence, she would have been acquitted of murder. She could still have been convicted of carrying a knife, but her sentence for that was only 18 months. If that had been her only conviction, the sentence may well have been suspended.

It is, of course, possible that the jury got this wrong. But they heard two weeks of evidence, not just the short summary that has appeared in the press, including hearing what the woman's two friends had to say, which differed from her account in some important details.

You will not get in a lot of trouble and a longer sentence for fighting back. If it goes to court at all, you will not be in any trouble if the jury accept that you were acting in self-defence.

All girls need self defence lessons as part of their education.

As someone who taught self-defence for decades, the best form of self-defence is to not be there. Do not get yourself into the situation wherever possible; and if you are in it, run like hell if you can or at the first chance you get. There is no way that even a few years of self-defence training will enable you to take on an attacker in combat. And a weapon is more likely to be wrested from you and used against you, so by all means why not furnish your attacker with the means to seriously harm or kill you?

You can tell the vast majority of posters here have had the luxury of not being raped unlike some of us

That's a pretty nasty thing to say even if true - which you do not know is the case. Just because someone may not have been raped doesn't mean that they are stupid or wrong - you are simply attempting to shut down disagreement because you want to be right. You are not right - carrying a weapon is an offence and you cannot argue that women should be able to carry any weapon they want but men must not, even if you disregard the fact that the woman's weapon will more often end up being used against her. Carrying weapons will not stop some men from abusing and raping women, but it will give you more dead women.