A MAN jailed for three years for breaking into a stranger’s flat and choking one of the occupants has lost his appeals against conviction and sentence.
The Court of Appeal rejected the claim that Aleksej Vladimirov did not understand the implication of pleading guilty because he was not provided with an interpreter.
It also rejected the claim that Vladimirov was wrongly advised he was likely to be convicted and, therefore, pressurised into admitting the offences.
Vladimirov – with co-defendant Dmitrijs Kuzmins – had been in Jersey for one day when they were arrested by the States police following a break-in and assaults at an apartment in St Helier on 6 September last year.
The two were jailed by the Royal Court in November but Vladimirov subsequently lodged an appeal against his conviction, claiming that the legal assistance he received was not practical and effective because of shortcomings in his understanding of English.
The Court of Appeal – president Clare Montgomery, sitting with Sir William Bailhache and Sir Adrian Fulford – agreed that translation services must be provided where necessary to ensure that a defendant could communicate with their lawyer, but it was not persuaded that an interpreter was required in this case.
It was noted that Vladimirov had no difficulty during interviews with the police and had not requested an interpreter in court – in spite of the fact that his co-accused had secured one.
The court also rejected criticisms levelled at Vladimirov’s lawyer who, he claimed, had pressurised him into pleading guilty.
“In our view, the advice that the applicant received was well within the range of appropriate professional responses by a competent advocate.
“Most advocates confronted with the evidence in this case would have been
inclined to advise the applicant that he was not likely to be believed,” Ms Montgomery said.
Vladimirov also complained that the sentence he received was manifestly excessive, failing to recognise the difference in the parts played by the two men.
Rejecting that appeal, Ms Montgomery said: “There is… no objectionable disparity between his sentence and that of Mr Kuzmins. Although Mr Kuzmins played the dominant role in the events, there is no reason to discount the applicant’s sentence since he chose to join in this very serious offending.
“The sentences on both men reflect the cumulative effect of their conduct viewed as whole. This is an appropriate refection of the gravity of their behaviour and does not call for any distinction in sentence.”
