JUSTICE FOR MARTYNA OGONOWSKA: DOUBLE VICTIM OF A MISOGYNIST JUSTICE SYSTEM
Martyna Ogonowska was convicted of the murder of Filip Jaskiewicz on 21 October 2018. She was just 18 at the time of the offence. Martyna and Jaskiewicz had met only a few days earlier, introduced by a mutual friend. Following a night out with friends, Martyna stabbed Jaskiewicz once to the chest whilst he violently and sexually assaulted her. She had previously been raped by an older man when aged only 14 and had developed severe post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of this rape.
On 25 April 2019, following a trial at Cambridge Crown Court, Martyna was convicted of murder and sentenced to a minimum term of seventeen years. The jury rejected her defences of self-defence and diminished responsibility.
Martyna has been granted permission to appeal her sentence and is renewing her application to appeal her conviction.
DETAIL OF CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE OFFENCE
Earlier in the evening, Martyna, went to a local nightclub with her two friends, Peter and Zofie. At the end of the evening, all four got into Jaskiewicz’s vehicle who had offered them a lift home.
Jaskiewicz started to drive at speed whilst highly intoxicated, in a way that frightened the other passengers. They repeatedly asked him to stop, but he did not. They did not know where he was driving to, and this scared them. Martyna was in tears. He drove in this manner for nearly two hours before eventually stopping the vehicle.
As soon as he did, Martyna got out of the vehicle and attempted to get away. Jaskiewicz chased her, grabbed her by the throat, shook her, and threw her to the ground. He attempted to sexually assault her until her two friends intervened. They considered walking home but did not know where they were. Martyna was persuaded that Jaskiewicz could be calmed down and so they decided to return to the vehicle.
However, once back in the car. Jaskiewicz grabbed Maryna’s breast under her top and he put his hand on her thigh. He slapped her in the face as she resisted these advances, physically removing his hand, but he was not deterred. Martyna then stabbed him in the chest with a small kitchen knife that her friend had given her to protect herself.
Following the stabbing, Martyna wanted to call an ambulance but her friends discouraged her. Instead she called her ex-boyfriend who arranged a taxi to bring them back to his address. The following morning she handed herself into the police, providing the knife and her clothing. Police describe her eyes as swollen from tears when she handed herself in.
MARTYNA’S BACKGROUND
Martyna was born in Poland and came to the UK aged 12 with her mother and younger brother to escape their father’s domestic violence. They settled in Peterborough where Martyna enrolled in the local secondary school.
Martyna struggled at school. She was unable to speak English and she was bullied by her peers and as a result she suffered low educational attainment. Subsequent fresh evidence obtained during the appeal proceedings suggests the presence of an intellectual/learning disability.
31ST MAY 2015 – RAPE INCIDENT
At the age of 14, Martyna was raped and sexually assaulted by an adult male who groomed her on Facebook. She reported the incident to the police through a friend (who could speak better English). The suspect was arrested by the police and initially denied any sexual penetration. He was released under investigation.
Three months later during an update visit from the police, the suspect changed his account and admitted sexual penetration stating he had not told the police the truth the first time as he was afraid of the consequences. He suggested he had not known Martyna’s age (despite knowing she was in school and her displayed date of birth on Facebook being under 16 years old). A number of important leads were not followed up by the police in their investigation. For example they did not consider the suspect’s previous criminal past from Poland where he had served a significant prison sentence, nor that he was hanging around with school girls. Instead they focussed on classic victim blaming tropes that were said to undermine Martyna’s credibility. In January 2016, the police decided to take No Further Action.
Following the rape, records indicate Martyna largely stopped attending school and would sometimes go missing overnight. She was known to the police through Operation Makesafe which was concerned with child sexual exploitation. At the age of 16 she became pregnant and gave birth to her daughter, suffering significant postnatal depression after the birth.
THE MURDER TRIAL
The previous rape incident in 2015 became the central focus of the murder trial. The defence psychiatrist in the murder case found that Martyna was suffering from severe PTSD caused by the rape in 2015 which would have impacted on her reaction to the further sexual assault by the deceased. The prosecution psychiatrist disputed that she had anything other than mild PTSD and also questioned whether she had been raped relying on common rape myths.
The prosecution relied on Facebook conversations between Martyna and the rape suspect over a three day period back in 2015 to imply she had wanted sex. However, a proper reading of the conversation showed the grooming of a child for sexual exploitation, with control, pressure, and blackmail applied to the 14 year old Martyna throughout their interactions. For instance, the suspect pressured Martyna into sending him an indecent image. Later, when they met, he filmed Martyna with her breasts exposed.
During his evidence in Court, the Prosecution psychiatrist went beyond his report and referred to Martyna’s account of rape and sexual assault at 14 years old as a false complaint. Recently the prosecution psychiatrist has been subject to judicial criticism and investigated. Despite this the prosecution will not concede that his evidence is problematic.
The Prosecution case was that Martyna had lied and made up the rape allegation when she was 14 years old which cast doubt on the diagnosis of PTSD, undermining the defence of diminished responsibility. Ignoring the rape suspect’s admission in September of the same year, the prosecution relied before the jury on Facebook messages after the incident to undermine the Appellant’s account. The prosecution told the jury any activity was ‘consensual’ by the then 14 year old, and that no penetration had taken place.
The admission by the rape suspect that he was aware that Martyna was under age was not put before the jury during the murder trial, nor was it summed up by the trial judge. During the trial, the prosecution positively disputed that Martyna had been sexually assaulted or raped.
For the purpose of Martyna’s appeal, fresh evidence was obtained from a new psychiatrist and psychologist. Martyna’s medical records and school records were also obtained for the first time, and corroborate her diagnosis of PTSD.
A new psychiatrist instructed in the appeal proceedings concluded that Martyna was suffering from severe post traumatic stress disorder. He stated that prosecution expert’s assessment lacked depth and his report did not indicate that he undertook a full inquiry into potential symptoms of PTSD as was required in this case. The admissibility of the prosecution expert’s evidence as an expert is being challenged in the appeal proceedings.
Following the lodging of the grounds of appeal, the CPS notified Martyna that a separate inquiry into the prosecution expert instructed in her trial had been ordered by Mr Justice Fraser, following adverse rulings in a different trial. The Judge in a separate murder case asked the CPS to investigate the prosecution expert following concerns arising in relation to his reliability, credibility, and professional competence in those proceedings, including ignoring material that did not suit his conclusion. Some of the results of the inquiry were disclosed in May 2022. The expert has been referred to the General Medical Council, and is currently under investigation. Martyna’s team is asking for disclosure for the remainder of the findings made against this expert.
Martyna is represented at appeal by a new legal team and supported by Justice for Women. She has been granted leave to appeal against her sentence of 17 years, but was refused permission to appeal her conviction. The application for permission will be renewed before the full court. Her appeal is expected to take place in the Autumn of 2022.