R v Renatas Butavicius

On 2 February 2026, at a PTPH at the Central Criminal Court, the applicant pleaded guilty to six offences. On 18 March he was sentenced as follows by Recorder Jeremy KC:

Although there were five victims, the Recorder ordered that all of these sentences be served concurrently so that the total sentence to be served was 2 years’ imprisonment. He also made a restraining order for a period of 4 years.

Against that sentence the applicant now appeals, his application for leave having been referred to the full court by the Registrar. The only issue on appeal is whether the sentence was wrong in principle. Ms Mainwaring submits on behalf of the applicant that it was, in that the Recorder failed to address the question whether the custodial terms should be suspended, whereas that is what he ought to have ordered.

The offences took place at around 11.10 p.m. on new year's eve, 31 December 2025. The applicant was out with his sister in Deptford, in South London and he was intoxicated. When he began to urinate against the wall of a bar called the Arks of Deptford, the owner of the bar, Arkin Zinnureyin, who was the victim on count 1, came outside to tell him to stop. The applicant responded by punching him to the side of the head.

One of the customers in the bar, Richard Territt (the victim on count 2), went outside to help Mr Zinnureyin. He was also attacked by the applicant who punched him several times and kicked him in the chest twice, causing him to go to the ground. Mr Territt's fiancée, Amber Davis (the victim on count 3), saw this and went outside, as did Mr Zinnureyin's son Hussein Zinnureyin (the victim on count 4), who intervened. As he did so, both he and the applicant fell to the floor. The applicant got back up and continued to assault Hussein Zinnureyin and Mr Territt.

Arkin Zinnureyin had moved away, but he returned to try and assist. The applicant continued to assault the people who were outside the bar, including by kicking Arkin Zinnureyin to the head which caused him to fall to the floor. Mr Zinnureyin tried to get up but, as he did, the applicant kicked him again to the head, rendering him unconscious. Ms Davis made her way across the road to where Arkin Zinnureyin was lying on the pavement and knelt down to assist him, whereupon the applicant kicked her in the chest and punched her to the head so that she also fell on the floor.

There were others members of the public in the vicinity, and the people began to gather round as they saw what was going on. One member of the public, Mr Temi Aghebo (the victim on count 5), who was a pensioner, happened to be passing on his way to church. Commendably, he tried to calm the situation down by approaching the applicant with his hands up, but the applicant responded by punching him twice in the head and then proceeded to attack other people. Mr Aghebo went to the ground. When he tried to get up again to calm the applicant down, the applicant punched him to his left temple, and he again fell to the ground.

The applicant then fled the scene. He was arrested a few days later and made no comment in interview.

The injuries sustained by Mr Arkin Zinnureyin included a gash above his right eye which bled profusely. This was stitched, as was a cut to his upper lip. He had a black eye, swelling to his face and his mouth, and his teeth were numb for some time after the incident. Mr Territt, having been knocked to the ground, had blurry vision for at least three days. Ms Davis sustained a very sore breast from being kicked, and also a very stiff shoulder. Hussein Zinnureyin sustained bruising to the right of his right eye and Mr Aghebo sustained a cut to one of his fingers. His jaw hurt severely and he described himself as “seriously aching all over” after the incident.

The applicant was 38 years of age at the date of the sentencing hearing and he had three convictions for seven offences, all of which had been dealt with in the magistrates' court. These were an offence under section 4A(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 committed in 2010, five offences of criminal damage in 2013 and one offence of failure to comply with the requirements of a community order in respect of those offences in 2014.

The Recorder had the benefit of a Pre-sentence Report dated 17 March 2026. This said that the applicant had been polite and co-operative in interview and presented as remorseful. He was in full-time employment and in a stable relationship with his partner. However, he acknowledged that he had been drunk at the time of the offences and that when he was in drink he could become aggressive and violent. He said that he had not taken alcohol since the incident and wished to address his problematic drinking, which he described as binge drinking rather than being an alcoholic. He was assessed as low risk of re-offending but as posing a medium risk of serious harm to members of the public in the event of his misusing alcohol and/or being challenged about his behaviour.

The Pre-sentence Report said that the applicant's response to previous supervision had been satisfactory and that, if the court was minded to do so, an 18-month community order would be an appropriate sentence. This would include an order for unpaid work and for interventions which would address the applicant’s drinking and tendency to violence when in drink, including an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement.

In his sentencing remarks the Recorder summarised the facts and described the attack as “vicious and cowardly”. He noted the applicant's previous convictions, but said that he would not treat those as aggravating features. He noted the contents of the Pre-sentence Report, and accepted that the applicant's remorse was genuine, but said that the applicant knew that when he was in drink he became violent and yet he had got himself into a state where that side of his personality emerged. He said that the offences crossed the custody threshold and that he would treat count 1 as the lead offence for the purposes of sentencing.

The Recorder categorised the case as A1 on the Sentencing Guideline for section 47 offences: ‘A’ for culpability because the offending was long/persistent, and ‘1’ for harm given that the physical harm caused to his victims was significant and the psychological harm was relatively serious. This gave a category starting point of 2½ years' custody and a range of 1½ years to 4 years.

The Recorder took into account as aggravating features the number of victims, the fact that two of them were involved in providing services to the public, the fact that there were numerous members of the public present who would have found the violence very upsetting and the applicant's consumption of alcohol. The mitigation was the applicant's remorse and his wish to address his issues with alcohol. Balancing out these features, the Recorder moved up the range on the Guideline to 32 months, before making a 25 per cent reduction for the guilty plea, which brought the sentence down to 2 years' imprisonment.

Ms Mainwaring, in her able and well-judged submissions, does not challenge the Recorder's categorisation of the offending or the total custodial term at which he arrived. Her principal criticism of the sentencing decision is that the Recorder moved straight from identifying the custodial term to imposing a sentence of immediate custody and, on the face of his sentencing remarks, did not consider or apply the Sentencing Guideline on imposition of community and custodial sentences (“the Imposition Guideline”).

As is well known, the Imposition Guideline states that when the custodial term has been determined, the court must ask itself whether the term can be suspended. In this case it could be because the total sentence was one of two years, and yet the Recorder made no reference to the possibility of making a suspended sentence order. The Guideline also states that in deciding whether the term should be suspended the court should weigh the factors which indicate that it may be appropriate to suspend and those which indicate that it may not be.

Ms Mainwaring points out that in this case there was no specific consideration of any of these factors by the Recorder in his sentencing remarks. She submits that had there been, he would have been bound to recognise that there was a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community. The applicant had not offended for a period of more than 10 years before the incident on new year's eve. He was assessed as low risk of reoffending and was unlikely to cause serious harm unless in drink. In relation to that issue the applicant was genuinely remorseful, had not drunk alcohol since the incident and, was keen to address his problematic drinking through an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement which the Pre-sentence Report had recommended.

The applicant was also in full-time employment and a stable relationship with stable accommodation, whereas a sentence of immediate custody would result in the loss of his job and, Ms Mainwaring says, potentially his home, given that he would not be earning so as to pay the rent. His history of compliance with court orders was satisfactory rather than poor, and he was likely to comply in the future. Moreover, Ms Mainwaring submitted, there was a restraining order in place which minimised the risk to any of his victims, who were in any event not known to him.

Accordingly, submitted Ms Mainwaring, had the Recorder considered suspending the custodial term, the right decision would have been that it should be suspended subject to the community requirements recommended in the Pre-sentence Report. As he did not consider the question, we should do so and should substitute a suspended sentence of 2 years' imprisonment for the sentence which was passed by the Recorder.

We agree with Ms Mainwaring that the Recorder erred in failing to address the question whether the custodial term should be suspended and in failing to consider the factors which are identified in the Imposition Guideline. We agree that, accordingly, it falls to us to consider the question whether the custodial term should have been suspended.

Before we do so, however, we note that this case concerns a conviction which took place before 22 March 2026. In relation to convictions on or after that date, the law now permits the suspension of custodial terms of up to 3 years and the Imposition Guideline requires a particular approach to the question of suspension where the term is 12 months or less. We emphasise that where it is possible to suspend a custodial term, whether or not the conviction predates 22 March 2026 and whether the term is more or less than 12 months, in their sentencing remarks judges and recorders must demonstrate that they have considered and applied the Imposition Guideline. As His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson KC, the Recorder of Sheffield, said as part of a different constitution of this court in the recent case of Rex v Gates:

It is regrettable that in this case the Recorder did not demonstrably undertake that exercise, and that it has been necessary to put this right in the context of an appeal. Submissions were made to him, which presumably he considered and rejected, but that is not apparent from his sentencing remarks.

Conducting the balancing exercise ourselves, we agree that there are the points in favour of suspension which Ms Mainwaring made and which we have summarised by reference to the Imposition Guideline. These are principally that there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community and that the applicant is not assessed as presenting a high risk of reoffending or harm. Some adverse impact on his partner also seems likely, although his case on this factor is not particularly compelling. However, there is at least the risk of some harm, given that the applicant's violence is linked to his issues with alcohol. Moreover, his history of compliance with court orders is only said to be “satisfactory” in the Pre-sentence Report, no doubt because he was breached in relation to the community order, although we accept Ms Mainwaring's submission that this consideration cannot carry significant weight given how long ago the breach occurred and given that the community order continued thereafter.

Significantly more importantly, this was a case of a drunken and unprovoked attack on at least five members of the public when the applicant was challenged in relation to his antisocial behaviour. The attack was sustained and persistent, when the applicant had every opportunity to walk away and when various attempts were made to calm him down. The applicant appears to have lost all self-control. He knocked various people to the ground. He also kicked at least one of his victims to the head when he was on the ground and/or in a highly vulnerable position. He was very fortunate, in terms of sentence, that his actions did not result in more serious and longer term injuries to his victims.

Having considered the various factors identified in the Imposition Guideline, and all of the circumstances of the case, we have concluded that the seriousness of the applicant's offending means that appropriate punishment can only been achieved by immediate custody.

We therefore give leave to appeal, but dismiss the appeal.

Tel No: 020 7404 1400

Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk