Court increases sentence for man who terrorised a woman

Vilnius Regional Court has increased Arturas Tomaševičius’s prison sentence to three years and one month for systematically intimidating a woman and damaging her property, LRT reported, citing the prosecutor’s office. The court upheld an appeal by a prosecutor from the Vilnius Regional Prosecutor’s Office.

In April, Vilnius City District Court sentenced Tomaševičius to two years and one month in prison. The prosecutor argued that the first-instance court wrongly reduced his sentence by one third, a provision intended for defendants who admit their guilt.

Although Tomaševičius had declared that he fully admitted guilt and agreed to an abbreviated examination of evidence, his conduct during the trial contradicted that claim, the prosecutor said. He changed his position on key allegations, raised doubts and asked the court to gather additional information and examine further evidence. The appeals court agreed that the first-instance proceedings had effectively involved a standard examination of evidence, leaving no basis for the reduction.

According to the case records, Tomaševičius repeatedly used psychological coercion to intimidate a woman he knew. In September and October 2024, he sent her threatening messages, threatened to harm her and kill her, and damaged her car. He also went to her home, threw bricks and concrete blocks at the apartment windows, broke the windows and damaged belongings inside.

On one occasion, Tomaševičius went to the woman’s apartment with Viktor Dadelo. Both men threw bricks at the windows, breaking glass and damaging items inside. Dadelo was convicted of damaging property. The appeals court also ruled that he was not entitled to a one-third sentence reduction and imposed a combined sentence of two years of restricted liberty with intensive supervision. He must remain at home unless leaving for work, either work or register with the Employment Service, and refrain from using psychoactive substances.

Both men had previously been convicted nine times and committed the new offences while their criminal records remained in force. The court classified them as recidivists. It also partially upheld civil claims brought by the woman and an insurance company, ordering the men to pay the awarded material and non-material damages.