Lukasz Czapla v. His Majesty’s Advocate [2022] HCJAC 40

Note of appeal against sentence:-The appellant was convicted after trial at the High Court of ten charges including a charge relating to the murder of his two year old son. The trial judge imposed the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with a punishment part of 23 years. He appealed against the sentence imposed on the ground that it was excessive. In relation to the murder charge the sole issue for the jury was whether the appellant was guilty of murder or of culpable homicide due to diminished responsibility.The sentencing judge made the following remarks when sentencing the appellant:- “As a result of your actions, your son will never grow up and his loving mother has lost him forever and can only be haunted by the knowledge of the truly evil things you did which I will not repeat. Suffice it to say that you showed considerable determination to ensure that a defenceless child would die, causing him considerable distress. It is no excuse that you were full of drink and drugs, indeed it is significantly aggravating when you were trusted to look after a two year old. You acted out of spite, killing your own child to punish his mother for leaving you and getting on with her life. The Court must do all it can to deter such cruelty being inflicted on an infant.” It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the punishment part was excessive with caselaw suggesting that a punishment part of 20 years was appropriate for the murder of a child (Boyle v HMA 2010 JC 66). It was submitted that whilst the jury had rejected diminished responsibility the appellant had nonetheless been been suffering from depression during the 4 month period leading up to the killing of his son and the appellant acted out of character not only in committing the assault but also in consuming alcohol and drugs in the quantities he did to cause him to be as intoxicated as he was. It was submitted that the sentencing judge ought to have taken his depression into account when selecting the appropriate punishment part. Here the court refused the appeal. The court stated that from the trial judge’s report it had not been established on the evidence that the appellant suffered from a depressed state of mind that caused him to consume excessive alcohol and antidepressant drugs and then, while his reasoning was impaired, to kill his son.The sentencing judge was of the view that the appellant’s primary motivation was a spiteful desire to punish his ex-partner.The court here agreed that the trial judge was entitled to proceed in the way he had. The jury rejected that the appellant had had diminished responsibility which left the court here with ”... very little room for a contention that the appellant nevertheless suffered from a mental disorder that caused him to behave out of character to the extent of committing a horrific and sustained assault on his two year old son.” The court noted that the case involved a cruel and determined attack on a sleeping child which continued through the child’s distress and which persistence justified a punishment part in excess of 20 years and the sentence imposed fell within the appropriate range and the appeal was refused.