The Klaipėda District Court passed a verdict in a criminal case on appeal regarding the attempted rape of a minor, her sexual assault and minor health impairment, partially satisfying the appeals of the victims and the prosecutor. The court of appeal changed the verdict of the court of first instance and sentenced the boy to 5 years of imprisonment, suspended its execution for 3 years and imposed a measure of educational impact – restriction of behavior for 12 months, during this period he was obliged to study or work, and it was forbidden to change the knowledge of the authorities controlling the execution of the measure without this measure place of residence, obliged not to consume alcoholic beverages. The court approved the agreement between the victims and the convict on compensation for material and non-material damage.
According to the verdict of the Tauragė district court, the young man was sentenced to 3 years and 4 months of imprisonment for the crimes he was accused of, with the execution of it suspended for three years, a measure of educational impact – behavioral restriction – was imposed, and the convicted person was obliged to continue his education or work during the entire period of suspension of the sentence and without the knowledge of the authorities controlling the implementation of this measure not to change the place of residence and not to consume alcoholic beverages for 12 months. The case was examined in the court of first instance in an abbreviated way of examining evidence. The amount of non-pecuniary damage awarded to the girl was increased for the first time during the appeal procedure, while the amount of the prison sentence remained unchanged.
The Supreme Court of Lithuania, having returned the case to the appellate court for re-examination, indicated that the case could not be abbreviated examination of the evidence, and ordered to conduct an examination of the evidence in order to thoroughly examine and accurately determine the circumstances of the case that are significant for making a correct decision.
The Klaipėda District Court, re-examining the case on appeal, in order to thoroughly examine and accurately determine the circumstances of the case that are significant for making a correct decision, conducted an evidence investigation: interviewed the convicted person, examined the testimony given by the convicted person during the pre-trial investigation, interviewed witnesses, examined the forensic psychiatry and forensic psychology examinations performed on the convicted person the conclusions of the act, the material submitted by the convict’s defense attorney, related to the convict’s labor relations, his characteristics, the payments made for compensation of damages. It should be noted that the convict withdrew his appeal, fully admitted his guilt, and an agreement between the convict and the victims was submitted to the court for compensation. The panel of judges, having evaluated all the case material and deciding the question of the appropriateness of the chosen punishments for the criminal acts, concluded that the final combined sentence of 5 years imprisonment imposed on the convict by the court of first instance is adequate and ensures the implementation of the principle of justice, and is not clearly too lenient. Such a conclusion was reached taking into account the legal circumstances that are important for solving this issue: the fact that the young man committed and attempted to commit criminal acts as a minor, has not been convicted, apologized to the victims, voluntarily compensated part of the damage caused by the criminal acts, after the appealable verdict, he started working regularly after finishing school and to compensate the victims for damages, as well as the fact that during the appeal proceedings for the second time, an agreement was concluded between the convict and his guarantors and the victims on the compensation of material and non-material damage. 1/3, concluded that this was done unreasonably, because in the case, taking into account the convicted person
the (in)consistency of the testimony in the pre-trial investigation and in the court, however, an abbreviated examination of the evidence could not be conducted.
The panel, taking into account the detailed testimony given by the convicted person during the re-examination of the case at the hearing of the court of appeals about the criminal acts charged against him, decided that the convicted person fully confessed to having committed the criminal acts charged against him and was sorry for them. This is recognized as a mitigating circumstance for the convicted person. The Supreme Court of Lithuania also takes the position that the full confession of the perpetrator after committing the act specified by the criminal law and sincere remorse can also be recognized during the hearing of the case in the court of appeal. In addition, the convict critically assessed his behavior, survived the crimes he committed, made voluntary efforts and is trying to mitigate the consequences of the crime – he apologized to the victims more than once, after getting a job he compensates the damage caused to the victims, agreed to pay the costs of the victim’s treatment to the Territorial Sick Fund, concluded an agreement with the victims for the compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and regularly makes periodic payments to the victims in accordance with the agreement concluded by them, adheres to this agreement.
Speaking on the validity of the postponement of the execution of the sentence, the district court stated that, in addition to the formal grounds existing in the case (the boy has not been convicted, he has not committed new criminal acts for a long time after the crime, he has only been punished once by administrative procedure, he was a minor at the time of the crime, there are mitigating circumstances ) to apply the suspension of the execution of the sentence, it is necessary to take into account one more important criterion, that is, the criteria for eliminating the damage caused by the criminal act. This is an objective criterion that does not depend solely on the promises or evaluations of the actions of the person being prosecuted, who is at risk of criminal punishment. The fact that criminal behavior has not been characteristic of him for almost four years is also assessed. Moreover, being free, the guy has a real opportunity with his earned income adequately compensate the victims for the damage caused to them, described in the agreement concluded by them and approved by the court on compensation for material and non-material damage. Actual deprivation of liberty in the case of this case is not necessary for resocialization, because the value scale of the convicted person is not so far from the imperatives of the law that it is necessary to apply a real deprivation of liberty sentence. The panel of judges decided that the established circumstances lead to the conclusion that the convicted person will not commit new crimes.
The judgment of the Klaipėda District Court enters into force on the day of publication, but within 3 months it can be appealed to the Supreme Court of Lithuania in cassation procedure.
Please credit the source when quoting or otherwise distributing this information.
