A “selfish” driver who left a couple seriously injured and trapped in the wreckage of their car after ploughing into it at up to 100mph has been spared jail.
Adrijus Luksenas cowardly fled the scene and called his girlfriend to pick him up as Lilianna Nicholls and David Emanuel lay unconscious following the smash on the A256 at Whitfield.
Adrijus Luksenas leaving Canterbury Crown Court after narrowly avoiding prison
The stricken pair had been enjoying a holiday during which Mr Emanuel planned to propose when Luksenas drove his VW Golf into the back of their Ford Fiesta in June 2023.
Luksenas – then aged 20 – had been on his way to see his partner following a row which had left him feeling “angry and agitated”.
He was also uninsured and over the drug-drive limit at the time of the crash, which occurred just four months after he had been caught drink-driving and again without insurance.
But despite his actions leaving his victims significantly affected both physically and emotionally, he was able to walk free from court at his sentencing hearing on Thursday.
The young dad, now 21 and from Sandwich, looked visibly upset as he was told he would not be going to prison primarily due to his age and the recent birth of his child.
Neither Ms Nicholls nor Mr Emanuel, who do not live in the UK, were at Canterbury Crown Court to watch Luksenas learn his fate.
They were said to have no memory of the crash, which occurred when they joined the dual-carriageway at the junction with Venson Road and in an area where the speed limit was 70mph.
Prosecutor Andrew Judge said one witness later described the VW’s speed to be in excess of 90mph, with another estimating it as being 100mph.
Luksenas’s speed was also said to be “excessive” earlier in his journey on a roundabout.
He came up so fast behind the Fiesta that he had no time to brake or control his VW to avoid careering into it, despite there being two lanes.
The crash happened on the A256 at Whitfield. Pic: Google
Mr Judge said the couple were not familiar with the area as they were on holiday.
Ms Nicholls had been driving “cautiously” along country roads and remembered joining the A256, and then waking up beside Mr Emanuel.
“She was shouting his name and thought he was dead,” said the prosecutor. “She believes she must have blacked out because she next heard ‘She’s back’.
“She asked ‘Who’s back?’ and they said ‘You are’.”
Another driver saw a cloud of smoke and then the Golf in lane one with the driver’s door open. The Fiesta was in lane two, facing the wrong way, with extensive damage and the occupants trapped.
“The defendant made off, called his girlfriend to pick him up and drive him away from the scene and to her property, where he was arrested,” continued Mr Judge.
“He was escorted to hospital but discharged with no injuries.”
Luksenas, a London Underground contractor, passed a breathalyser test but was found to be over the legal limit for the breakdown product of cannabis, known as THC.
Although the level of the substance in his system was 2.2 micrograms when the limit for driving is 2, he passed an impairment test.
He later gave a ‘no comment’ interview.
The defendant made off, called his girlfriend to pick him up and drive him away from the scene and to her property…
Ms Nicholls, a nursery nurse and cleaner, was taken to hospital with injuries including a fractured collarbone for which she needed surgery.
As well as being left with visible scarring, she struggled with day-to-day activities, was unable to look after their four-year-old daughter, and suffered flashbacks and nightmares.
Mr Emanuel could only recall waking up in London’s Kings College Hospital, having been airlifted there with lacerations to his liver and spleen, multiple cuts and bruises, internal bleeding and a punctured lung.
It was another seven days before he was discharged.
Both he and his girlfriend needed long-term physiotherapy and, as of last week, he was still suffering lower back problems and numbness in his thigh.
Describing himself as “incredibly frustrated” in a victim impact statement read to the court, Mr Emanuel added: “I’m trying my hardest to remain strong and positive.”
The court heard Luksenas, of Strand Street, admitted his guilt in respect of the unrelated driving offences that had been committed in February 2023 in August of that year. He was banned from driving for one year.
These were dealt with in a separate hearing and before he had pleaded guilty to the two charges of causing serious injury by dangerous driving in respect of Ms Nicholls and Mr Emanuel.
But Paul Hogben, defending, this week said his client had now “grown up” considerably, changing his lifestyle and behaviour from a time when it was “immature and stupid” to one where he had achieved “highly responsible” employment and become a dad.
Referring to Luksenas’ account given to the probation officer on the day of the incident, the barrister told the court: “He said he had, in anger, jumped into the car of a friend, intending to travel to Sandwich to see his partner with whom he had had an argument.
Adrijus Luksenas was sentenced at Canterbury Crown Court
“He fully admitted that at that time his life lacked any structure or any purposeful meaning, that he had issues within his relationship and that he would, when struggling to cope, have recourse to drink and drug issues.
“That was 18 months ago and it’s clear from the report that in the months between committing these offences and coming before Your Honour this afternoon, Mr Luksenas has grown up.
“In a comparatively short period, this young man has made some key changes in his life.”
Mr Hogben detailed how the defendant had worked “through his own industry and determination” to achieve employment, holding a job not only with responsibilities for four employees but also subject to random and routine drug-testing.
Furthermore, said the lawyer, he had resolved his problems with his partner, and their daughter had been born in November last year.
“This, together with his employment and work ethic, extols to the heavens that this young man has made a substantial effort since he committed these offences,” added Mr Hogben.
The court was told his remorse was genuine and that Luksenas was not only prepared to compensate his victims financially but also to face them, if they were willing, in what is known as restorative justice.
It was also said that custody would result in him losing his job, impacting his young family.
“He knows he faces immediate imprisonment. He asks Your Honour that, in light of the changes he has made in key areas of his life, you suspend that term and punish him in the community,” urged Mr Hogben.
“This gives him the chance to continue making progress in his employment, to continue looking after his partner and their daughter, and also to pay compensation to his victims.”
Instead of trying to help or calling the emergency services, you made arrangements to be picked up in an effort to avoid responsibility for the tragic consequences of your dangerous driving…
Judge Simon James retired to decide what the appropriate punishment should be, returning after some lengthy consideration to tell Luksenas that he could take an “exceptional course” and give him a “last and final chance”.
He said he had taken not only his age, guilty pleas and the effect a spell behind bars would have on others, but also the current pressures on the prison system.
Judge James also said that although Luksenas was over the limit for THC, there was no evidence that it “materially impaired” his driving.
But he told the dad he had been affected by his emotions and his resulting “aggressive, selfish, reckless and risk-taking actions” had had serious consequences for his two victims.
“Whatever the exact speed, it was obviously far in excess of the speed limit and meant you had insufficient time to brake or otherwise control your vehicle to avoid a collision with the rear of the car in which Ms Nicholls and Mr Emanuel were travelling, despite it being on a dual-carriageway,” said Judge James.
“Both were knocked unconscious by the impact and left trapped in the wreckage. It would have been obvious that they were both seriously injured.
“You, however, appeared to have no thoughts for anybody other than yourself and, instead of trying to help or calling the emergency services, you made arrangements to be picked up in an effort to avoid responsibility for the tragic consequences of your dangerous driving.”
But Judge James said that Luksenas had since demonstrated he “not only had the capacity but also the ability” to rehabilitate himself, and therefore he was “just persuaded” to suspend the two-year jail term for two years.
Luksenas was also ordered to undertake 250 hours of unpaid work and 30 rehabilitation activity requirements.
Explaining the implications of any failures to comply or further offending, the judge warned: “I am giving you a chance, primarily because of your youth.
“It is, however, a last and final chance and you need to appreciate that if you fail to undertake the unpaid work or supervision, I will reserve all breaches to myself.
“There will be no ifs or buts, and you will receive the custodial sentence many may think you richly deserve today.
“If you come back you will have nobody to blame but yourself for your imprisonment.”
Judge James also remarked that although he hoped the victims would be compensated in the civil court for their “pain and suffering”, financial reparation by Luksenas was necessary.
He must therefore pay Ms Nicholls £1,500 in compensation and Mr Emanuel £2,500, all within six months.
Luksenas was also given a three-year driving ban.