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!!!!

It’s unbearable. This should not stand.

I was thinking of over 18s which I thought man implied. I don’t think we take underage sex seriously enough there seems to be a wishy washy concept of consent for underage children. Technically wrong but they are going to do it.

Then often rape / abuse can be chalked up to consensual/ choices.

1. At 14 it is not statutory rape. It is either rape if she did not consent, or sexual activity with a child if she did. The fact her alleged attacker was not charged suggests he was of similar age to her. There is evidence that they had consensual sex.
2. It was considered.
3. She broke the law by carrying a knife with a fixed blade more than 3 inches long. It doesn't matter why she carried it. That was an offence.
4. We do care, but the jury decided this was not self-defence.
5. Really overstating things now. Just make up facts to suit your prejudices. The jury had to deal with the evidence of what did happen.
6. If her life had been in danger, she would have been able to use deadly force to protect herself with impunity. That would not have been murder or manslaughter, although she may still have been convicted of carrying a knife. However, the jury heard all the evidence, not just the bits that the press and JfW have chosen to report, and decided this was not self-defence.

Thanks. I'll have a look.

Edited while I read the sentencing remarks.

Women get harsher sentences because they almost always use a weapon. Most men don’t need weapons as they can just use their hands.

These are the appeal remarks

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/64fe0b38f6fa7f68ca49f5f1

The fact her alleged attacker was not charged suggests he was of similar age to her.

According to the judgment, he was 4 years older than her. It was 4 days before her 15th birthday, so he was about 19. That's an adult having sex with a child. It's not clear why he wasn't charged.

Ogonowska, R. v | [2023] EWCA Crim 1021 | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

There is big difference in the social development between teens a year or two is a lot or even between teens of the same age.

And there are plenty of threads on MN with parents (mums) asking if its ok to let their underage childs potential sex partner sleep over. The idea that as parents they need to step up and chaperone the child is not even on the table not that they should have be very clear from an early age that they dont approve of their child thinking about having sex until they are older because its about babies and adult choices. And that some children dont have the ability to recognise abuse let alone reject it.

Then there are the posters saying having sex at 14/15 was not "harmful" as they turned out fine (except for thinking underage sex is fine in any circumstance).

But it a social acceptance where teachers are to teach sex ed but not giving an official emphasis that its a criminal act. Or that girls end up having to deal with the majority of the downsides from birth control to sexual assaults.

Outrageous. A reminder that our justice system hates women.

So if she had managed to grab a brick or a rock that was there and killed him that way it would be fine? I must remember to carry something like that to fight off rapists. Ffs.

edit. I just realised that sounds like I was arguing with you. I wasn’t. I mean that if the issue is she killed a man then does it matter what she used. Poor woman.

I like how you wrote and worded that

Saw that. Horrendous

What the actual fuck!!!! I’d march for this if it’s happening!

Thank you for this link. The detail in the full judgment is very useful.

I see she was represented in her appeal by Ben Cooper KC.

Thank you. I hadn't spotted that. With that age gap, it is surprising he wasn't charged even if the sex was consensual.

As per my previous post, the fact she was carrying a knife did not prevent it being self-defence. If the jury accepted that she had killed him in self-defence, she would not have been convicted of murder regardless of the weapon used. She was convicted because, having heard from her and also from the two witnesses (her friends who were in the back seat of the car), the jury decided that she did not kill him in self-defence. Of course, as she carried a knife she may have been convicted of that even if she had been found not guilty of murder, but in that situation the 18-month sentence she received for that offence may well have been suspended.

That’s horrific , it was obvious the knife was for self defence. Carrying the life may have been illegal but it’s use was not. Why were they not looked at as two seperate acts.

I got angry reading this like most posters here but then read the detailed case notes and can understand why this wasn’t treated as self defence or loss of control. Still think this poor woman has had a horrendous life but I can understand why the jury decided the way they did and why the appeal failed.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/64fe0b38f6fa7f68ca49f5f1

The knife was a kitchen knife that was taken from by a group of friends (defendant, a couple, victim’s mum and brother, and attacker) on their way to a night club. The defendant claimed her female friend took the knife, the friend said she didn’t but the defendant often carried a knife as self defence so it was interred she took the knife. Since she didn’t say she carried the knife at all let alone in self defence, the jury can’t think she did.

In terms of the incident, the violent attack where he grabbed her by the throat and threw her to the ground happened with an interval between her stabbing him. I think if she had stabbed him at that point the jury would have seen it as loss of control, self defence and manslaughter rather than murder. However, they were still in a group where the friends pulled him off her and calmed the situation down. They all then got back into the car where the defendant was in the passenger seat, her attacker (I can’t refer to him as a victim..) in the driver seat, the friends in the back seat. The attacker put his hand on her breast, she swung at him with the knife in hand delivering a single fatal wound to chest. She was shocked and told friends she hadn’t realised knife was in hand and told the jury her friend had handed her the knife before she got into the car.

I think at the point she stabbed him, since he was sitting in the drivers seat and not violently attacking her, with friends in the back - it’s hard to accept stabbing was her only self defence and appropriate use of force. No doubt alcohol would have been involved as well as it was 5am after the night club.

So it’s not the case I imagined where a lone woman was being violently raped and used a pocket knife she always carried to defend herself. The reality is she did kill someone when it would have been easier to get out of the car (and call her ex bf to sort a cab like she did later), or sit in the backseat and have the male friend sit upfront or have her friends intervene again. Her life wasn’t in danger as he was sat down and unarmed so stabbing him wasn’t self defence. The guy was scum and the law does need better provision for women and self defence but this wouldn’t be the case for it.

As an aside I do think it’s dangerous to carry a kitchen knife to a night club because everyone is under the influence of alcohol and innocent victims could get injured accidentally as well.

Tragic story and I do feel for her, also the guy she killed would 100% have raped someone eventually but we can’t kill people as a preventative measure when life is not in immediate danger or threat.

I agree with your take on the failure of the appeal, renoleno , even the admirable Ben Cooper wasn't able to make it stand up.

But

the guy she killed would 100% have raped someone eventually but we can’t kill people as a preventative measure when life is not in immediate danger or threat.

I know that all men are potential rapists, but how can you be 100% sure about that young man who was killed - he had a name, Filip Jaskiewicz.
He might well have been a nasty piece of work, but who knows what he would have become if he been allowed to live past 23?

I would like to see how others would behave if they were locked in a car with a man driving erratically and shoving his unwanted hand under their clothing at the age of 14...

Hmm... Murder... Hmm... Welp.

I can understand the jurors dilemma but this does sound like punishing the victim who fought off their bully.

She wasn't 14 when she stabbed him. Have you read any of the detail at all?

It has nothing to do with him being a man and I don’t think all men are potential rapists. It’s the fact he grabbed a woman by the throat and threw her to the ground, reaching for his zip, and his own friends said they thought he would have seriously sexually assaulted her if they hadn’t intervened. Also the fact he said he wishes the male friend wasn’t around so he lock both girls in a room and he and his mates could have fun with them.

If a man can get violent with a woman in a group and threaten rape, he is 99% of the way there to being a rapist.

He wasn’t driving, it was a still car.

They were. And the jury decided that its use was murder.