After the terrible family drama, there is an unexpected reaction from the judges: the state is also to blame

The prominent lawyer from the capital spoke about the final and unappealable ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania (SCL) confirming the ruling of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal in a particularly sensitive criminal case announced in August last year: the mother was convicted of killing deliberately to your newborn baby. . The judges disagreed with the prosecutors who applied the letter of the criminal law: the court did not imprison the child murderer, although the Penal Code only provides for the imposition of a real custodial sentence for murder.

According to the judges, a woman in a particularly difficult situation should not be imprisoned and the responsibility for the murder of a newborn should also fall on the state, whose officials did not provide assistance to the future mother.

“A State that has not complied with its legal obligation cannot punish a convicted person who is in a difficult situation but who has committed a very serious crime with the most severe prison sentence, which will only achieve one: the objective of the sanction, which does not affect only the person sentenced the remaining children ‘, is pronounced in a conviction of a criminal case seen in private.

According to the judges of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal, the 38-year-old woman, who has already given birth to three children, “did not want a fourth child due to difficult circumstances, lack of personality maturity, complicated relationship with a partner and said clearly about it “- she sought medical help to have an abortion, but at that time the pregnancy was 13 weeks and it was no longer possible to interrupt it.

According to the judges, the nurses saw and understood that the woman did not want to give birth, had psychological and other social problems, but did not provide or refer to specialists, psychologists or relevant public bodies that provide such assistance, they reported relevant relatives and problems of children and children’s rights. Security services: “Therefore, they did not pay due attention to the situation.”

The panel of judges of the Court of Appeal imposed on the mother a legal maximum penalty of two years in prison, along with “prohibitions and specific and personality-oriented obligations”: to participate in a correctional program, psychological counseling, work or registration in all the period of deprivation of liberty In the Employment Service, also from 22 to 18 hours. be at home. In addition, the convicted person must work 200 hours without pay during the first six months of deprivation of liberty. in health, care and welfare institutions or non-governmental organizations that take care of the disabled, the elderly or other people in need of assistance.

At that time, the prosecutors of the General Prosecutor’s Office disagreed with the conclusions of that court, so they appealed on cassation against the verdict of the Vilnius Regional Court, which confirmed the sentence of the 8-year-old mother of prison.

Prosecutor Jurga Zieniūtė, who filed a cassation appeal, stated that the judges who did not impose a prison sentence deviated from the jurisprudence of the court of cassation: “The importance of the degree of danger of murder in determining the amount of the penalty of prison cannot be reduced. “

According to the Public Ministry, a very serious crime was committed, which had irreversible consequences: deprivation of life, in addition, according to the prosecutor, a family member and a minor were killed in a defenseless state, and the crime was committed intentionally. and it was not accidental.

“The way of committing the act shows the cynical and brutal attitude of the convicted person towards his own son and his life”, pointed out J. Zieniūtė that in this criminal case the balance between the danger of the crime and the personality of the convicted person was not properly balanced, and the public interest was completely forgotten and a dissuasive punishment would be imposed on the perpetrator for having committed a very serious crime.

The complaint also indicated that, although the convicted person had not been convicted before, he had been administratively punished almost twenty times.

After examining the complaint, the Chamber of Judges of the Supreme Court of Lithuania (Rima Ažubalytė, Gabrielė Juodkaitė-Granskienė, Alvydas Pikelis) ruled that there was no legal basis to annul the judgment of the appeal court. It is true that they recognized that “the assessment of the circumstances (balance) established by the court of appeal relevant to a just sentence and the sentence imposed on the convicted person on that basis are not flawless”, but they decided to take into account the most important circumstances established.

According to the judges, the baby was killed by the mother when “the state did not provide social assistance to the person in need”; this story will be stuck in her for life as she will no longer have the opportunity to have any more children.

In response to the prosecutor’s allegations in the complaint, the judges indicated that “the mere fact that the inmate has been repeatedly administratively sanctioned for driving on public transport without a ticket, given the difficult economic situation of the inmate and his family, does not provide grounds for for concluding that the convicted person tends to ignore the requirements of the law, above all because the economic situation of the convicted person has changed as a result of the provision of social services to her and her family ”.

According to them, the convicted person, after providing him with adequate social services, currently fulfills all judicial functions (including advising a psychologist), and there have been no cases of non-compliance or poor performance of the general functions of probation.

“The commission of the crime was influenced by the lack of timely social assistance by the State and the period of pregnancy, taking into account the difficult material conditions, the complicated family relationships with a partner and their negative attitude towards the birth of their portable baby “he added. the court noted in the ruling. – There is no doubt that unwanted pregnancies and difficult family life and other social circumstances during the pregnancy were detrimental to the mental state of the girl condemned for the birth of the girl and influenced the decision to kill her baby immediately afterwards of birth. After committing the crime, the inmate, with the help of social service institutions, has made changes in his life and has implemented them, these changes allow us to expect positive convictions in the future and a positive impact on the children he is raising. “

According to the judges, the convicted person was sentenced to prison for the crime: “The content of this sentence presupposes adequate control of her behavior, maintaining important social ties between her and the minor children, and has elements of punishment, and the convicted person carries out his duties impeccably. The convict confessed to the crime and sincerely regrets it. “

And, as the Court of Cassation noted, in such circumstances, “the imposition of an actual custodial sentence of any duration on a convict would undo the positive changes in his life and potentially create a situation that could be described as the imposition of a sentence incorrect “.

R. Mikliušas, a famous Vilnius lawyer who defended the convicted person in court, does not hide that such a court verdict should inspire confidence in the judiciary, because the circumstances established in the case were seen from the human side and not as the law. formally applied. .

“In this case, the court did not limit itself to a formal investigation and sentencing, as suggested by the prosecution, but examined all the circumstances and reasons that led to the crime in a very professional way, although it may not have done so. . ” Delphi said the lawyer. – On the contrary, both the Lithuanian Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court found that the authorized state institutions had not fulfilled their functions and had not provided the convicted person with adequate social assistance when she needed it most. Courts have the opportunity to base their decisions on fairness and reasonableness, as they have in this case, changing the custodial sentence and finding that the objectives of the sentence will be achieved and the public interest will be significantly better served with another. Kind of pity and allowing my client to raise three children. “

According to him, after the sentence of the appeals court was pronounced, “the motivated comments of well-known people in the country in support of this decision on social networks clearly demonstrated that the public supported the court’s approach.”

The girl was not expected

This story became clear already in 2018. at the beginning of August, when from Karaliaučiaus st. a very serious bleeding woman was taken to the hospital by ambulance from the apartment building where she lived. She told doctors that she had a criminal abortion a week ago, that a “family doctor” who had removed the fetus left parts of the placenta in her uterus, leading to uterine inflammation, sepsis and anemia.

After several days of intensive treatment, the patient’s condition improved and doctors told police officers that the woman had recently given birth to a baby. Realizing that no one believed the abortion story anymore, the woman admitted that she had given birth to a baby in the apartment’s bathroom and later got rid of it.

Both at the start of the investigation and in court, the mother-of-three said she went to the bathroom at the beginning of labor, gave birth to a baby girl here, and then dipped her head into the outlet of the toilet bowl. When the baby no longer showed signs of life, the woman wrapped him in a towel and hid him in the bathroom and hid him under the bathtub.

At that time, both the mother’s partner and other family members were at home, but they did not notice anything suspicious, the woman demonstrated having problems “due to women’s issues.” And that same night, the woman who had put the body of the newborn in a bag took it to the basement of the apartment building and hid it here. He was able to stay here for about a week before the woman concealed her whereabouts at the hospital from police officers.

You can read more about the judgment of the appeals court at Delphi articles.