Marcin Pawal Forys [2019] EWCA Crim 943

Regina v Marcin Pawal Forys [2019] EWCA Crim 943 concerned an appeal against sentence by Mr Forys in which the Court of Appeal, comprising Lord Justice Davis, Mrs Justice Simler and the Recorder of London (His Honour Judge Hilliard QC), dismissed the appeal.

On 3 August 2018, following a trial at Kingston upon Hull Crown Court before His Honour Judge Kelson QC, Mr Forys (then aged 32) was convicted of wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and kidnap. He was sentenced to a 20-year extended sentence comprising a custodial term of 16 years and an extended licence of four years pursuant to section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The totality of the offending was reflected in the extended sentence passed in respect of the wounding offence. A concurrent term of six years’ imprisonment was passed in respect of the kidnap. Mr Forys was acquitted of attempted murder. His co-accused, Mr Alex Haigh (born 9 January 1991), received the same sentence for the same offences; his application for leave to appeal was refused by the single judge and was not renewed.

On 18 September 2017 at approximately 8.30am, the complainant, Mr Lee Atkinson, was at his home with his partner, her daughter Ashleigh, and Ashleigh’s boyfriend, Alex Haigh. Another man was also present. Two further men arrived, one of whom was Mr Forys. After about fifteen minutes, Mr Forys began to demand money from the complainant and punched him when none was forthcoming. He then placed the complainant’s hand inside a car jack and tightened it so that the complainant could not move. He held the complainant down on the floor and struck him to the head and back with bicycle handlebars. Mr Forys then told Mr Haigh that the complainant had “shagged Ashleigh”, passed Mr Haigh a tyre iron, and instructed him to hit the complainant. Mr Haigh struck the complainant to the ribs and shouted threats. Both men then continued to assault the complainant. Mr Forys stamped on the complainant’s head. The complainant’s partner was crying and screaming for them to stop, but threats were issued at her.

Mr Forys told the complainant they would go for a drive so that he could extract the truth from him, or “you will not come back”. The complainant was in pain and was falling asleep. Mr Forys held his arm while Mr Haigh injected something into it. Mr Forys then said, “You will feel everything I do to you”. He told the complainant to put on his coat, which smelt strongly of petrol. The complainant was forced into the rear of a motor car driven by Mr Forys, with Mr Haigh in the front passenger seat. His hands were placed back into the car jack. During the drive, Mr Forys flicked a knife in the complainant’s face and said, “If you try to jump from the car while we’re driving I will kill you where you sit”. During the journey the complainant was punched and threatened.

After about 20 or 30 minutes they drove down a small dirt track in a remote location and stopped. Mr Haigh dragged the complainant from the vehicle and struck him with the tyre iron. The complainant tried to run away but was unsuccessful and was dragged back and again hit with the tyre iron. Mr Forys told Mr Haigh to stop and said, “I’m going to burn the mother fucker”. Mr Haigh poured petrol over the complainant’s head and Mr Forys lit the petrol. The complainant rolled in the wet grass to stop the flames. Petrol was again poured over him and lit again. The complainant again fell to the ground to extinguish the flames. A man walking his dog then appeared and the complainant screamed for help. At that point, Mr Forys and Mr Haigh ran back to the car, but Mr Forys shouted, “Now we go to the house and burn it down with Katie and the dogs in”. The complainant was helped by the passer-by and the emergency services were contacted.

The complainant suffered a laceration to his left eyebrow, bruising and grazing to his right cheek, and a deep laceration to the dorsal aspect of his right wrist. Although no burns were evident, he smelt strongly of petrol. X-rays showed multiple right-sided rib fractures with a small right-sided pneumothorax, and a fracture to the right little finger. His wrist lacerations and other lacerations were sutured. Both Mr Forys and Mr Haigh were arrested and interviewed. Mr Forys denied the offences in interview and declined to comment in a second interview.

Mr Forys was aged 32 at sentence, born on 19 September 1986. He had five convictions spanning the period 2015 to 2017. Of relevance were three offences of battery. He had not previously experienced a term of imprisonment. There was no pre-sentence report available to the sentencing judge. There was, however, a Victim Personal Statement from the complainant describing the impact of the offending on him and his life.

In passing sentence the judge referred to the prolonged nature of the attack on the complainant, which he described as nothing short of torture. The attack lasted between one and two hours. During it, the complainant was repeatedly threatened with death. His partner was also threatened with death. The judge referred to the way in which the complainant was incapacitated and physically attacked repeatedly with weapons, bars and items from the house, which caused the wounds to which he had referred. There was gratuitous degradation in the threats uttered. The judge described the fact that the complainant was forced to ingest amphetamines orally and then, when those did not work sufficiently, amphetamines were injected into his body so that he would feel the full extent of the pain, as indicative of the psychopathic nature of the attack. The judge accepted the jury’s conclusion that the offenders did not intend to kill the complainant, but found that the petrol was set alight, which he treated as part of the torturous episode. The judge recognised that Mr Forys had relevant previous convictions and ultimately concluded that he was dangerous because in the course of the enterprise he had played a leading role. It was he, for example, who brought out the car jack; it was he who went and obtained the fuel-soaked garment; and it was he who drove the car that was used to facilitate the kidnapping. The judge recognised that Mr Forys had a more limited record than Mr Haigh, but regarded that as fading into insignificance, given the grotesqueness of this extended episode of extreme violence. The judge concluded that it was a category 1 offence. He did not accept that the injuries did not amount to serious injuries for the purposes of the Definitive Guideline, as was argued on Mr Forys’s behalf. He concluded that a standard determinate sentence would not fully address the risk presented by Mr Forys and concluded that the extended sentence was necessary.

Mr Bernard Gateshill of counsel, appearing on Mr Forys’s behalf, realistically accepted that a very lengthy sentence for this particularly grave category 1 offence was inevitable. In the single ground of appeal pursued, however, he contended that it was wrong for the judge to conclude that Mr Forys was dangerous. Not only was there no pre-sentence report available – and no warning to counsel that an extended sentence was in the judge’s mind – he contended that an extended sentence was inappropriate, having regard to a number of features. First, he referred to the fact that Mr Forys had limited previous convictions, and nothing that could justify a finding of dangerousness. Secondly, although he recognised the multiplicity of injuries, none of the injuries were as serious as they might have been. Thirdly, he referred to the fact that Mr Forys was acquitted of the charge of attempted murder, so that there was no specific intent to kill. Finally, he compared the behaviour of Mr Haigh, described during the trial as “psychopathic” in nature, with that of Mr Forys, who was subdued and whose behaviour overall was not indicative of dangerousness. Mr Gateshill also pointed to the progress that Mr Forys had made according to the author of the pre-appeal report obtained for the court, and to the fact that he had received praise for his attitude towards staff and his helpfulness whilst in prison. He submitted that such behaviour was not indicative of a man properly categorised as dangerous.

The Court of Appeal rejected those submissions. The court held that the judge presided over the trial and heard all the evidence relating to the attack on the complainant, and was accordingly best placed to assess the nature and extent of the attack, the extent of the role played by Mr Forys, and the harm caused by it. It was a planned, premeditated attack by two on one. Weapons were used. In addition to the prolonged physical aspect of the attack, the complainant was repeatedly threatened with death. He was incapacitated and restrained by use of the jack. He was injected with drugs and driven to a remote location where he was left in no doubt that he would be killed. He was blindfolded and fuel was poured over him. Mr Forys and his co-accused only ceased their attack when disturbed, and even then they continued to make threats. Although no doubt the complainant’s physical injuries would heal, the court considered that the judge was entitled to conclude that the inevitable psychological impact on the complainant was serious and potentially life-changing. There were aggravating features: the location of the offending; the ongoing effect on the complainant; and the gratuitous degradation to which he was subjected. There was in fact no real mitigation. It was a particularly grave attack with multiple features of culpability that caused serious injury and involved greater harm.

The court further held that although Mr Forys’s antecedent record included only limited violence which was of a significantly lower scale to that involved in the index offence, there were two offences of battery, both of which appeared to have involved entirely unprovoked attacks on other men. Those offences indicated that Mr Forys was a man prepared to use violence as retribution for perceived wrongdoing in a deliberate and planned way. That propensity to use violence together with the unexplained, unprovoked sadistic violence amounting to torture involved in the index offence amply entitled the judge to conclude that a lengthy determinate sentence would not adequately address the risk presented by Mr Forys. The conclusion that he posed a significant risk of causing serious harm through offences of violence in the future and was therefore dangerous was open to the judge. The court was fortified in reaching that conclusion by the contents of the pre-appeal report prepared by Mr Mark Sambrook, dated 18 March 2019. The probation officer interviewed Mr Forys on two occasions at HM Prison Full Sutton. He recorded that at that stage Mr Forys did not accept responsibility for his offending and articulated no victim empathy. The court noted Mr Gateshill’s submission that Mr Forys did now accept the facts of the assault, although even now he did not accept the entirety of the account given. Mr Sambrook stated that although there was no established pattern of offending reflected within Mr Forys’s antecedents, there was an emerging pattern involving the use of instrumental violence. He outlined the circumstances of the offences of battery. In relation to the assessment of risk, although the probation officer identified the progress made by Mr Forys, he nevertheless assessed Mr Forys as posing a high risk of serious harm to members of the public. There were, he said, identifiable indicators of such harm, including the propensity for Mr Forys to target individuals for retribution, or in order to enforce or carry out the wishes of others.

The court accepted, as Mr Gateshill had argued, that it would have been better for counsel to have been warned that a finding of dangerousness was in contemplation so that the question of obtaining a pre-sentence report could at least have been considered. Nonetheless, the court considered that the finding of dangerousness was amply open to the judge in this case. In short, the appeal against sentence was dismissed, the finding of dangerousness and the imposition of the extended sentence being fully justified by the grave nature of the offending and the appellant’s propensity for instrumental violence.

Bangura (Unisa)  [2026] EWCA Crim 642