R v Kordasinski (Leszek)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE MAY
Judgment Date07 November 2006
Neutral Citation[2006] EWCA Crim 2984
Docket NumberNo:200506145/B4
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Date07 November 2006
Regi
and
Leszek Kordansinki

[2006] EWCA Crim 2984

BEFORE:

Lord Justice May

(Vice President of The Queen's Bench Division)

Mr Justice David Clarke

Mr Justice Teare

No:200506145/B4

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London, WC2

MR K AYLETT appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT

MISS A MORRIS appeared on behalf of the CROWN

(As Approved by the Court

LORD JUSTICE MAY
1

There are 13 proposed grounds of appeal against conviction in this matter. Leave to appeal was refused for 12 of them by the Single Judge; he gave leave on ground 5.

2

Mr Kordasinski renews his application for leave to appeal on the other 12 grounds. We shall refer to him as "the appellant", although for most part he is in fact an applicant.

3

The Single Judge also refused leave to appeal against sentence, contingently on the conviction appeal. He renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence.

4

Mr Aylett, on his behalf, has explained today that some of the proposed grounds of appeal against conviction were formulated before he was able to take instructions, there being language problems absent an interpreter to enable him to do so. We are grateful to the interpreter who has been in Court today for the no doubt hard work which she has had to put in in the circumstances of this appeal.

5

The appellant was convicted on 14th October 2005, in the Crown Court at Southwark, before His Honour Judge Elwen and a jury, of three counts of a four count indictment. Count 3 charged rape, and he was convicted on that count and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment with an extension period of 10 years under section 85 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. On count 2, alleging assault by penetration, he was convicted and sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment concurrent. On count 4, false imprisonment, he was convicted and sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment concurrent. In total meant an extended prison sentence with the imprisonment term of 10 years and an extension period of 10 years. He was acquitted of count 1, which alleged kidnapping with intent to commit a sexual offence.

6

The facts need to be set out in some detail. On the evening of 13th February 2005 a person called Mr Pereira was sitting in his flat in Stamford Hill, London, N16, when he heard knocking and cries for help. He opened his door to find a distressed, half naked woman who had her legs bound and a rope around her waist. She said that she had escaped after being held in the flat below which was rented by the appellant, who is a Polish national.

7

It was the prosecution case that while at Seven Sisters the appellant had recognised the 18 year old complainant, a Polish woman, who had rented a flat from him. He forced her into his car (this was the subject of count 1, the kidnapping count of which he was acquitted) and returned her to his flat where he had raped her. He forced her to undress and had taken sexual photographs of her before leaving her tied to the bed while he left the flat on an errand.

8

It was suggested that he had subsequently made efforts to avoid detection by fleeing from his flat, abandoning his car and changing his appearance.

9

It was the defence case that the appellant had met the complainant by arrangement and she had voluntarily got into his car and gone back to his flat. They had previously had a sexual relationship which had involved tying one and other up and his taking photographs of her. They had had consensual sexual intercourse on 13th February 2005. He had tied her up and taken photographs of her but this was with her consent, just as had been the case in the past. She, he said, had made up allegations against him in revenge for his refusal to keep her financially. He admitted that he had abandoned his car but denied that he had changed his appearance or made attempts to avoid detection by the police.

10

The complainant gave evidence that she came to London with a friend of hers in 2004. They rented a flat from the appellant and got on well with his daughter. She went back to Poland in August 2004, and did not see the appellant again until the day of the incident, 13th February 2005.

11

On that day she was on her way to Dalston to see about a job. As she was changing buses at Seven Sisters, the appellant appeared and grabbed her by the arm and spoke to her using vulgar language. He dragged her along the street, threatening to kill her if she did not shut up. This went on for about 10 minutes until they reached his car. He bundled her inside and locked the doors while continuing with his threats. She repeatedly asked him to let her go but he refused.

12

On reaching his flat, it was her evidence that he dragged her inside, pushed her on the sofa and began beating her and calling her a whore. He threatened to beat her so badly that she would not wake up until the next day. He snatched her mobile telephone and pushed her into the bedroom. He demanded that she undress and threatened to beat her up if she refused. She did undress and so did he. He then pushed her onto the bed and started kissing. She tried to push him off but he was too strong. She asked to leave, but he threatened to keep her there until his family returned from Poland. He asked her to take his penis in her hand and put it in her mouth. She said that she would not perform oral sex even if he beat her to a pulp.

At some stage she said he put his fingers into her vagina. When he managed to get an erection he put his penis into her vagina. She could not remember if he ejaculated or not. There came a time when he produced some pornographic magazines and asked her to adopt some of the poses. He then took some photographs of her.

13

As a result of a telephone call, he said he had to leave the flat but if she tried to escape he would beat her into unconsciousness. He tied her to the bed and gagged her by putting a sanitary towel in her mouth and tape over her lips. When she felt sure he had gone, she managed to free one of her hands. She got hold of a lighter from the bedside table and was able to burn through some of the ropes attaching her to the bed. She was able to put on her waistcoat and hop upstairs to seek the help of a neighbour, Mr Pereira.

Mr Pereira got his son to fetch a knife and cut her legs free. With his help she managed to retrieve her clothes from the flat and took away the camera and film used by the appellant. While she went to dress, Mr Pereira fetched the landlord, Mr Gee, who got her mobile telephone from the flat. The appellant then appeared and spoke to her in Polish. He apologised and offered her £1,000 to keep quiet, which she refused. Mr Pereira took photographs of her injuries using her mobile telephone. She contacted her brother who collected her and took her home where she had a bath. The appellant later telephoned and repeated his offer and apology which she again rejected. She later contacted the police with the help of a friend.

In cross-examination, she agreed that she had spoken to the appellant before setting off for Dalston but denied that she had arranged to meet him in Seven Sisters. She accepted that she owed him money, but denied he had paid for her trip to Poland in August 2004, or that she had telephoned him in Poland. He had not collected her from Luton on her return. She was friendly with his family, and invited to eat with them from time to time, but did not have a habit of dropping in on them unannounced.

Mr Pereira gave evidence. He said that he was resting that afternoon, when he heard knocking on his door and cries for help. He opened his door and saw a half-naked woman whose legs were tied and had a rope around one wrist. The rope was strong, and the knots were bound with silver tape. The girl, who he had never seen before said: "He got me on the road". She was very distressed, shaking and crying. She managed to make it known that she wanted him to go with her to get her clothes, which he did. At some time he saw her remove the film from the camera. He admonished her and said it could have been used as evidence by the police. When she realised what she had done, she was upset with herself.

Mr Pereira went to see if the appellant was around and then told the landlord, Mr Gee, what had happened. Mr Gee and a colleague came up, spoke to the girl and then went down to see the appellant. His camera was exchanged for her mobile telephone. Mr Pereira took some photographs of the girl with her mobile telephone and waited in his flat for someone to collect her.

The prosecution also called Mr Gee, the landlord, who gave confirming evidence of such details as concerned him. There was evidence, in the form of statements, from the complainant's brother and two of his friends who confirmed various evidence, including the state in which the complainant was when she returned to them.

There was evidence also from Kinga Vebishka, who confirmed that she and the complainant had rented the flat from the appellant in June 2004 and confirmed that the complainant owed the appellant money.

The appellant was arrested. He had approached letting agents on 23rd February. After that he was arrested on suspicion of rape.

Examination of the seized mobile telephones and also one belonging to the complainant showed that between 15th January and 14th February 2004, one of his telephones had contacted her on 23 occasions. There were no calls from her telephone to his during that period.

There was medical evidence and some forensic evidence. The complainant was medically examined. She was noted to have burn blisters to her wrists and ankles which were consistent with her having been tied up. There were...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Re W-A (children: foreign conviction)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 8 August 2022
    ...City Council [1993] 1 WLR 286, [1993] 4 All ER 124, (1993) 65 P & CR 387, [1992] 44 EG 153, [1992] NPC 125, ChD. R v Kordasinski[2006] EWCA Crim 2984, [2007] 1 Cr App R 17, (2007) 171 JP 206, [2007] Crim LR R v Levey[2006] EWCA Crim 1902, [2006] 2 FCR 724, [2006] 1 WLR 3092, [2007] 1 Cr App......
  • The Assets Recovery Agency v Gheorghe Virtosu and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 5 February 2008
    ...evidence of convictions outside the UK under those provisions. In that context, it has been held that the rule has been overruled. In R v Kordasinski [2006] EWCA Crim 2984; [2007] 1 Cr App R 17 CA May LJ giving the judgment of the Court noted that Hollington v Hewthorn was not concerned wi......
  • W-A (Children: Foreign Conviction)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 5 August 2022
    ...cases: — Where the Criminal Justice Act 2003 has provided that foreign convictions are admissible as evidence of bad character: R v Kordasinski [2006] EWCA Crim 2984; [2007] 1 Cr App R 17. — Where the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes provision for those with relevant foreign convictions to ......
  • Mark Christopher Breslin and Others and Seamus McKenna and Others.
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland)
    • 8 June 2009
    ...provisions relating to criminal evidence foreign convictions can now be admitted as evidence of propensity (see R v Kordasinski [2007] 1 Cr App R 17 ). The rule has been criticised notably by Lord Diplock in Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands [1982] AC 529 where he expressed the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT