Woman gets 17 years in jail for killing a man as he was sexually assaulting 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

Awful! She’s just lost her appeal too! What was she meant to do? Let him kill her?!?

Actual rapists get suspended sentences yet she gets 17 years!!!!

Absolutely Disgraceful.

The judge who handed out that sentance should be ashamed.

If all domestic avenues for appeal have been exhausted, she may be able to take a case to the ECtHR (European Court of Human Rights) for a violation of her rights under the Convention of Human Rights. IANAL, but see Article 5 of the Convention below.

1. Grounds for ECHR Appeal:

The ECHR can review a criminal sentence if the individual believes there has been a violation of their human rights as defined by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Examples of potential ECHR violations in criminal proceedings could include:
Violation of the right to a fair trial (Article 6): This includes issues like unfair trial procedures, the right to legal representation, or an impartial tribunal.

Violation of the right to an effective remedy (Article 13): This ensures that individuals have access to a legal process to address human rights violations.

Violation of the right to liberty and security (Article 5): This relates to issues like unlawful detention or excessively harsh sentences.

Unsurprisingly there’s more to this story. Before commenting people should maybe do a little research. The man she stabbed was actually her new boyfriend, not some random attacker. Afterwards she left him to bleed to death, went home cleaned the knife, her clothes and contacted her mother about the killing on FB. Roles reversed the comments would be the killer got what they deserved!

According to the article, they were in a car with another couple when the stabbing happened. He wasn’t raping her. The other couple were in the back seat and the girl and the dead man were arguing in the front of the car. It says the dead man touched her leg as she was sitting in the front seat. That doesn’t warrant stabbing a person to death. I do sympathise with her having PTSD, but it is a criminal offence to carry a knife.

Wow i thought she was being raped by a stranger...

Sat in a car with your boyfriend and another couple is very different...
Presumably the sentance reflects it wasn't self defense / her life wasn't in danger

She was violently sexually assaulted by her new boyfriend, what difference does it make that they had a relationship?

This is horrific.

Was she violently assaulted or he touched her leg? Very confusing.

The appeal was against the length of her sentence not against the conviction? Is that right or have I misunderstood.

I'm slow to comment on sentences when I haven't been in court to hear all the evidence given at a trial.
In this case, I'm glad I didn't comment before I read the report of the trial
at www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/martyna-ogonowska-murder-peterborough-filipjaskiewicz-16181887-
thanks Arabella for adding to our knowledge of what happened by posting that link.

Poor young woman and a mother. She looks broken. This is terrible .

I think I would have more faith in the account from a women's group than some local rag, where some trainee is left to do the reporting of court cases.

Martyna, went to a local nightclub with her two friends, Peter and Zofie. At the end of the evening, all four got into Jaskiewicz’s vehicle who had offered them a lift home.

Jaskiewicz started to drive at speed whilst highly intoxicated, in a way that frightened the other passengers. They repeatedly asked him to stop, but he did not. They did not know where he was driving to, and this scared them. Martyna was in tears. He drove in this manner for nearly two hours before eventually stopping the vehicle.

As soon as he did, Martyna got out of the vehicle and attempted to get away. Jaskiewicz chased her, grabbed her by the throat, shook her, and threw her to the ground. He attempted to sexually assault her until her two friends intervened. They considered walking home but did not know where they were. Martyna was persuaded that Jaskiewicz could be calmed down and so they decided to return to the vehicle.

However, once back in the car. Jaskiewicz grabbed Maryna’s breast under her top and he put his hand on her thigh. He slapped her in the face as she resisted these advances, physically removing his hand, but he was not deterred. Martyna then stabbed him in the chest with a small kitchen knife that her friend had given her to protect herself.

Following the stabbing, Martyna wanted to call an ambulance but her friends discouraged her. Instead she called her ex-boyfriend who arranged a taxi to bring them back to his address. The following morning she handed herself into the police, providing the knife and her clothing. Police describe her eyes as swollen from tears when she handed herself in.

https://www.justiceforwomen.org.uk/martyna-ogonowska

The report in the local paper was not written by "some trainee". It was written by one of their editors. It is an accurate summary of the evidence and the judge's sentencing remarks, whereas the account you reproduce is essentially that put forward by the defence. I am not saying that either account is correct, of course. I wasn't there when she stabbed him, so I don't know.

In terms of the sentence, the judge concluded that the prosecution had proved she brought the knife to the scene. If he had accepted her claim that someone gave her the knife, the sentence would have been lower. However, on the basis that she brought the knife to the scene, the starting point for sentencing was 25 years. The judge has come down a long way from that.

So because she carried a knife it isn't self defence?

The fact she was carrying a knife did not, of itself, mean it wasn't self-defence. That was for the jury to decide. The judge gave them the standard direction on self-defence and left it entirely up to them. They decided that, on the evidence, it was not self-defence. If they had decided that it was self-defence, she would have been convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. We don't know what led them to conclude that it wasn't self-defence, but the fact she was carrying a knife should not, on its own, have been enough to convince them.

he has decided she hadn't been raped at 14

For clarity, the judge accepted the prosecution's argument that the intercourse was consensual based, in part, on messages between her and her alleged attacker. What happened was still an offence, although if it was consensual it would have been sexual activity with a child rather than rape. I don't know, but the fact the alleged attacker was not prosecuted suggests he was close to her in age.

Correction to my last post. Don't know what I was thinking when I said it would be manslaughter if the jury accepted that it was self-defence. If they had accepted that, she would have been found not guilty of either offence, although she could still have been convicted for carrying a knife.

Another correction after reading further. Since she was convicted for carrying a knife, it is clearly the jury that decided she brought the knife rather than being given it by someone else as she claimed. I was wrong to say the judge had decided that.

I genuinely think rape laws should be tightened up, any man having sex with an underage child should be guilty of a crime. How can it be consensual when she lacks capacity to consent due to age?

It is a crime if any man has sex with an underage child.

If the child is under 13, it is automatically rape. If the child is 13 or over, the offence is sexual activity with a child if it is consensual, rape if it is not.

However, if a girl aged 13 or over has consensual sex with a boy who is close to her own age, the boy will not be prosecuted in most situations even though he has committed a crime. We don't criminalise teens or label them as sex offenders for having consensual sex with each other.

Note that, despite 16 being referred to as the age of consent, the law does not say that a girl under 16 cannot consent to sex. It says that anyone having sex with a girl under 16 is committing an offence regardless of whether she consents.

It was written by one of their editors.

I beg your pardon? Are you saying that because an "editor" only reported that bits that suit the prosecution case that is okay?

If the defence said something different then the editor or the trainee should have reported that.

On what basis did the court or the reporter decide then can just ignore what women say.

What a totally bizarre attitude.

But then of course in line with how women are always found to be wrong.

Or was the prosecution able to say that the defence story was fabricated.

Evidence of what was said between an abuser and the abused is nearly always not the truth but what someone who is being coersively controlled would say.

Added to which if the defence story of a drunken man driving erratically and dangerously when passengers are asking him to stop, and then when he does stop goes after one of the female passengers and sexually assaults her, what must her state of panic be.

Its travesty.

And as I say, I have far more faith in the report of events from JfW than some reporter, whatever status they may have. Lets face most men never understand the impact the actions of men have on women.

Shocking slack, if not biased, reporting.

Is there any record of what the two witnesses said. I assume they were in court.

Ah yes, the woman who claimed that she forgot she was holding a very large kitchen knife and meant to simply punch him in the chest before phoning her ex and going to his house to change clothes and clean the knife (and then messaging her mum on FB). The sentence was reduced given the associated factors, but given the actual detail of the case which seems to be omitted in some articles the punishment seems fair for the crime.

I beg your pardon? Are you saying that because an "editor" only reported that bits that suit the prosecution case that is okay?

No, I am saying it wasn't some trainee who didn't know what they were doing, which is what you implied. And no, she did not report the bits that suit the prosecution case. There are actually few differences between what Ogonowska says and this report.

She says she was given the knife by one of her friends. Having heard the evidence, the jury decided this was false - that she had brought the knife along herself. Her account of what happened after the stabbing differs in some respects from her two friends. This report generally follows the account of her friends. But both accounts pretty much agree as to the events leading up to the stabbing.

If the defence said something different then the editor or the trainee should have reported that.

This was sentencing. Reports of sentencing rarely cover the whole trial. And, as I've pointed out above, it would have made little difference to the report.

On what basis did the court or the reporter decide then can just ignore what women say.

Nobody decided to ignore what women say. Ogonowska's case was heard. Her female friend was one of those who gave evidence against her. The jury decided that they did not accept Ogonowska's argument that it was self-defence, nor that she had been given the knife by one of her friends. Are you really saying that the courts should automatically accept without question everything a defendant says just because she is a woman? I don't know if the jury got it right and nor do you, but Ogonowska was definitely not ignored.

Added to which if the defence story of a drunken man driving erratically and dangerously when passengers are asking him to stop, and then when he does stop goes after one of the female passengers and sexually assaults her, what must her state of panic be.

All of which was in the report in the local paper. Perhaps you should try reading it.

And as I say, I have far more faith in the report of events from JfW than some reporter, whatever status they may have. Lets face most men never understand the impact the actions of men have on women.

What you mean is that you trust the report from JfW more than you trust the jury who actually heard the evidence and decided to convict.

Yes, they both gave evidence for the prosecution. We don't have the full details of what they said, but the report in the Cambridge News which another poster hates tells us some of what the female witness said.

One of the points missing from the JfW account is that, when they returned to the car, Ogonowska initially sat in the back seat but then moved to the front seat, next to the victim. This does not suggest she was in a state of panic.

She said that the female witness (Zofie) had brought the knife and gave it to her. Zofie denied this. The jury cleary accepted Zofie's account as they convicted Ogonowska of carrying a knife. The sentence therefore reflects the fact that she carried the knife that she used to the scene.

She said that she punched the victim in self-defence and forgot she was holding the knife. When she went to the police, she initially claimed to have punched him and then claimed the stabbing was accidental, in the middle of a struggle. The jury was instructed to consider whether her actions were self-defence and decided they were not. They also had the option of deciding the stabbing was accidental and decided it was not.

I don't know if the jury got this right, and nor does anyone else on this thread. We weren't there when the stabbing took place. But the jury heard all the evidence and were in a much better position to decide than anyone else.

How is this any different to the Dehli rape/murder? In India, the men convicted (and some of the police) said she should have just gone along with the gang rape because then the perpetrators wouldn't have 'got angry'

How is the UK any different? What the judge has basically said is interpreted as;

1. You were raped once, but we don't believe you, even though it's statutory rape regardless of consent
2. You suffer from PTSD but we don't care
3. You carried a knife because you were afraid of future assault. Your predictions were true but we don't care
4. You definitely were attacked and used excessive force due to adrenaline, danger response, fear, PTSD...but we don't care
5. You should have allowed yourself to be raped and then reported it and we would have dealt with the matter in due course after victim blaming and shaming you.
6. Quite possibly your attacker would have brutally assaulted you, possibly even killed you. At that point you may have been permitted to use a bit of force to prevent your own demise...possibly a meak slap?

We are supposed to be a better, more developed country yet our laws don't protect women. How many of us women feel safe walking the streets alone? I certainly don't. What a failure of society 😢

I made my comment not realising the articles stated a different version to the initial posting

I'll have a read first in future!

Because the age of the other person matters too. If its a 13 year old with a 13 year old they both are "sex offending" but its not in the public interest to charge both

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-13-sexual-offences-and-youths