Court rejects Pawel Klosowski’s appeal against 34-year jail term for murdering his son Lukasz Klosowski and Chelsea Ireland

A court erupted in applause as the drunk, enraged father who shot dead Lukasz Klosowski and Chelsea Ireland at a family gathering was told his sentence would not be cut.

The family and friends of two teenagers murdered by Pawel Klosowski have burst into applause at news he would not be receiving a reduced sentence.

The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected Klosowski’s appeal against his 34-year non-parole period for the murder of his son Lukasz and Chelsea Ireland.

Dozens of family and friends packed both the main court and an overflow court.

As the judgment was read out, Klosowski remained expressionless but the gallery burst into applause.

Klosowski, 46, shot the two 19-year-olds dead at his Mt McIntyre property, between Millicent and Kalangadoo in the South-East, while fuelled with alcohol and rage after an argument broke out on August 22, 2020.

Teenage sweethearts Lukasz Klosowski and Chelsea Ireland.

The judgment came only weeks after the appeal – a relatively short time by Supreme Court standards – and only days after the one-year anniversary of the murder.

Outside court, family of the couple said the judgment was relief.

“It was the result we have been hoping for, it has been a very traumatic week with the anniversary and this,” Chelsea’s father Greg Ireland said.

Family members of Lukasz Klosowski and Chelsea Ireland leaving the Supreme Court. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Naomi Jellicoe

Magda Pearce, Lukasz’s mother, said the family will be forever grieving the loss of the two teenagers.

“We will never mention the prisoner again and we hope that he will never be mentioned again after today but we hope that our children will always be remembered.”

Debra Ireland, Chelsea’s mother, said their families were still living a “life sentence”.

The judgment of the court described Klosowski’s crimes as “chilling”, particularly noting that his wife and two young children had been forced to hide as the killings occurred.

Appeals Court President Trish Kelly and Justice Mark Livesey in a joint judgment condemned the calculated and cold-blooded killing of the young couple.

“Not only was this a double murder, but it involved an extraordinary response to what many would consider a banal domestic disagreement,” President Kelly and Justice Livesey wrote.

“The appellant’s offending, affected by alcohol, can be seen to be characterised by determination, brutality and purpose.

“(Klosowski’s) murder of his son, to whom he owed duties of care and protection is difficult to comprehend. However, the sustained and purposeful brutality of the appellant’s conduct was demonstrated by his pursuit of Chelsea.

“As shocking and disturbing as the murder of Lukasz was, the pursuit and killing of Chelsea was simply senseless.”

Magda Pearce, mother of Lukasz Klosowski, outside court following the Court of Appeal’s rejection of Pawel Klosowski appeal against the length of his sentence. Picture: Naomi Jellicoe

Pawel Klosowski was jailed with a 34-year non-parole period.

However, the court directly addressed Klosowski’s right to appeal, saying there had been at least some merit in the application.

“The application for permission to appeal in this case was neither misconceived, nor wholly without merit,” President Kelly and Justice Livesey wrote.

“Permission to appeal has been granted because, though unsuccessful, the appeal was reasonably arguable.”

Pawel Klosowski was jailed with a 34-year non-parole period.

Justice Sam Doyle in his reasons said the 40-year starting point for Klosowski’s sentence before discount was “severe but within the permissible range”.

He concluded that while there was a utilitarian use in allowing discounts for early guilty pleas, the seriousness of the crime and the need for public confidence allowed for a reduced discount in Klosowski’s case.

During the appeal hearing Lucy Boord SC, prosecuting, said any lowering of the sentence would degrade the value of Chelsea’s and Lukasz’s lives.

“The real question for this court is does the non-parole period adequately recognise the human dignity of the two victims,” she said.