The Court of Appeal has dismissed Andrzej Benko’s appeal against the severity of his 15-year sentence for attempting to murder his wife, Joanna Benko, in their home in Mulhuddart in 2010.
In a judgment delivered on 13 January 2022, the court said the sentence imposed by the Central Criminal Court was appropriate after considering the catastrophic injuries, the circumstances of the attack and the mitigating factors. The appeal concerned sentence only; the court had previously dismissed Benko’s appeal against conviction.
A jury unanimously found Benko guilty of attempted murder after a trial in March 2014. He had pleaded not guilty. The sole issue at trial was whether he intended to kill his wife. The court said the conviction meant the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he had that intent, and a sentencing court could not go behind that conclusion.
The judgment said Benko struck his sleeping wife on the head with a lump hammer. He called emergency services and drove to Blanchardstown Garda Station, where he reported what he had done and made admissions. His wife suffered severe brain and skull injuries. The court said she would require lifelong care and would never lead an independent life or care for her child.
The Court of Appeal identified the attack on a defenceless woman in her own home, by her husband and while their young son was in the house, as aggravating factors. It also noted that Benko had used a hammer and had had opportunities to address the problems he described through non-violent means.
Mitigating factors included his lack of previous convictions, his immediate call for help and cooperation with Gardaí, the court’s acceptance that his remorse was genuine and continuing, and a forensic psychologist’s assessment that he was at low risk of reoffending. The court also considered that he had contested only the question of intent and had conceded various technical matters at trial. It said this approach could attract some sentencing credit in an appropriate case, while an accused must not be penalised for exercising the right to trial.
The court rejected the prosecution’s argument that Benko’s not-guilty plea and trial meant he had resiled from his earlier remorse and cooperation. It said his defence—that his admissions did not establish an intent to kill—was not inconsistent with those earlier expressions or actions.
Although the sentencing judge had not specified a starting sentence before mitigation, the Court of Appeal concluded there was no error in principle in imposing 15 years. It said a life sentence or a 20-year determinate sentence could have been appropriate without the mitigating factors. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.