As reported by the court on Tuesday, on the night of June 26, 2022, a BMW car driven by a man went off the road into a nearby body of water in Pajudrio village and overturned; the accused’s partner and their four-year-old daughter, who were in the car, drowned after drinking water.
Read more Parts of Poland are drowning: Tuesday storms brought very heavy rain, winds are tearing roofs apart
The man survived. Later, he was found to have a blood alcohol level of 2.41 per mille.
Since there were no other people in the car at the time of the traffic accident, the courts had to decide who – the accused or his partner – was driving the car.
The first instance court acquitted him, and the appellate court, not determining who was driving the car, upheld that decision.
The cassation court, returning the case for a new trial, indicated that when deciding who was driving the car, it is necessary to evaluate the explanations of the court experts and the conformity of the expert report with other evidence in the case, the injuries of the deceased, and witness testimonies.
Upon re-examining the case, the appellate court found that the convicted person was driving the car and sentenced him to five years of imprisonment. The civil claims of the victims and civil plaintiffs were partially granted.
After this decision, four cassation complaints were received.
The convicted person requested to mitigate the sentence imposed, to cancel the confiscation of 6470 thousand euros, and his defender sought to uphold the acquittal of the first instance court.
Read more Putin sent the «last days plane» to Iran
Meanwhile, the lawyer representing the victims and civil plaintiffs requested an increase in the amount of non-pecuniary damage awarded, and the insurance company’s representative requested to uphold the acquittal.
The Supreme Court of Lithuania rejected the cassation complaints of the convicted person’s defender, the victims and civil defendants’ representative, and the civil defendant’s representative, but partially granted the convicted person’s cassation complaint.
The panel of judges motivated this decision by stating that the courts improperly applied property confiscation, as they unjustifiably confiscated from the convicted person an amount equivalent to the value of the BMW car, rather than the car itself.
Accordingly, the appellate court’s verdict was amended and the car was confiscated.
The panel of judges, after reviewing the contested verdict according to other cassation complaint arguments, found that the appellate court did not err in those respects.
Read more Rescue operation that shook Turkey: a little girl with an inflatable mattress found in the open sea
This ruling is final and not subject to appeal.
