The Court of Appeal quashed a five-year sentence that had been suspended almost in its entirety and imposed five years’ imprisonment, with credit for time served, on Vidas Petrauskas. The decision followed an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against undue leniency.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 28 February 2019, Ms Justice Kennedy said the court was resentencing Petrauskas after its December 2018 judgment on the appeal. The original sentence had been imposed by the Circuit Criminal Court on 8 December 2015, after Petrauskas pleaded guilty on 13 November 2015 to an offence under section 15B of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, as amended. He had spent about five and a half months in custody before that sentence was imposed.
The judgment said customs officials stopped a Lithuanian-registered vehicle at Rosslare Harbour on 1 July 2015 and found drugs valued at €144,272 concealed inside. Four people were travelling in the vehicle. Petrauskas was arrested and interviewed five times by gardaí. The court said he cooperated to a certain extent and made admissions in his final interview about the journey and collection of the drugs.
At the original sentencing hearing, the Circuit Court heard that Petrauskas was 47, ordinarily lived with his mother, was married and had worked in Lithuania before the offence. He had one previous conviction, for criminal damage, which the Court of Appeal said was not considered relevant to sentencing in this case. The appeal court also heard that he had acquired no new charges and appeared to be employed in Lithuania.
The Court of Appeal said the original sentencing judge had placed significant weight on Petrauskas’s conduct while in custody on remand. It described the offence as serious, noting the value of the drugs and his role as the vehicle’s driver, with knowledge of the operation. The judgment recorded that he returned to Lithuania on 14 December 2015 and had been at large since the original sentence.
In setting the replacement sentence, the court said it took account of the time he had spent at large and the disappointment of receiving a custodial sentence at that stage. It said the sentence was therefore somewhat less than it would have considered appropriate had it sentenced him in the first instance. The court quashed the Circuit Criminal Court sentence and imposed five years’ imprisonment, with credit for time served.