The Court of Appeal has dismissed Andrzej Benko’s appeal against his conviction for attempting to murder his wife, finding that the trial judge did not err in directing the jury on the presumption that people intend the natural and probable consequences of their actions.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh on 14 May 2021, concerned the conviction only. Benko’s 15-year prison sentence was not under appeal in these proceedings.
The attack took place at the couple’s home in Mulhuddart, Co Dublin, on 5 July 2010. The court said it was not in dispute that Benko struck his sleeping wife on the head several times with a lump hammer, causing life-changing injuries. At trial, the central issue was whether he intended to kill her, the mental element required for attempted murder.
Benko argued that the trial judge should not have mentioned the presumption because it was confined to murder cases under the Criminal Justice Act 1964. Alternatively, he said the jury direction was inadequate because it did not explain that the relevant natural and probable consequence had to be death, give an example of how the presumption could be rebutted, or relate the direction to the case’s facts.
The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the presumption applied only to murder. It held that a similar common law principle remained part of Irish criminal law and applied across a range of offences involving intent.
The appeal court said the trial judge’s direction was correct on the burden of proof: the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the presumption had not been rebutted. It acknowledged that a fuller explanation, including an example and a link to the facts, might have been preferable. But the judge had told the jury immediately beforehand that attempted murder required an intention to kill, and the trial had included extensive Garda interview admissions by Benko about his state of mind. The Court of Appeal concluded that, in the circumstances, the direction could not have caused unfairness or misunderstanding.
The court also noted that defence counsel had raised a concern about the presumption after the charge but did not press it, and had not asked the trial judge to contextualise the direction. It refused the appeal ground and dismissed the appeal against conviction.