|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1968) 2 CLR 119
1968 August 23
[VASSILIADES, P., TRIANTAFYLLIDES AND STAVRINIDES, JJ.]
ANASTASSIS KYPRIANOU,
Appellant,
v.
THE POLICE,
Respondents.
(criminal Appeal No. 3019)
Criminal Law-Sentence-Misconduct, contrary to section 188 (d) of the Criminal Code, Cap.154-Annoying a female in a public place-Sentence of 7 days' imprisonment-Term doubled &v the Supreme Court on appeal against sentence by the offender under its powers under section 145 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155.
Criminal Procedure-Appeal-Sentence-Sentence increased by the Supreme Court exercising its powers under section 145 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155-See, also, above.
Sentence-Sentence manifestIy inadequate-Sentence increased on appeal-Section 145 (2) of Cap.155, supra.
Dismissing this appeal by the offender against his sentence (7 days imprisonment), the Supreme Court found that in the circumstances of the case 7 days' imprisonment was manifestly inadequate; and exercising their powers under section 145 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 1 55 increased the sentence to one of 14 days' imprisonment to run from the date of conviction.
Appeal against conviction and sentence.
Appeal against conviction and sentence by Anastassis Kyprianou who was convicted on the 20th August, 1968 at the District Court of Nicosia (Criminal Case No. 15839/ 68) on one count of the offence of misconduct contrary to section 188 (d) of the Criminal Code Cap. 154 and was sentenced by Vakis, D.J., to seven days' imprisonment.
Ch. Loizou, for the appellant.
M. Kyprianou, Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by:-
VASSILIADES, P.: After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, both on the issue of conviction and on the sentence imposed by the trial Judge, we found it unnecessary to call on counsel for the respondent.
As regards the conviction, counsel for the appellant conceded, in the course of the argument, that it was open to the trial Judge to find the facts on which he based the conviction from the evidence before him. We may add that we entirely agree with the learned trial Judge that the conduct of the appellant in this case, was sufficient to constitute the offence under section 188 (d) of the Criminal Code.
As regards sentence, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that 7 days' imprisonment, in the circumstances of this case, was a manifestly excessive sentence. All that his client did, according to the finding of the trial Judge, learned counsel argued, was to extend his hand towards the leg of a passing female without actually touching her.
The trial Judge's view, as stated in his judgment, was that such a behaviour in " a frequented street where people go with their families or ladies go by themselves to do their shopping, is conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace"; and that in a Cyprus town, it may easily lead to serious trouble. A fine, the trial Judge thought, would not be sufficient punishment in the circumstances of this case, and he passed what he called "a warning sentence" of 7 days' imprisonment.
We found considerable difficulty in dealing with the question of sentence in this case. One of the objects of sentence is its deterrent effect. The imprisonment imposed may, perhaps, be a sufficient warning to this particular appellant, but we very much doubt whether it can have sufficient deterrent effect on other persons inclined to annoy females in public places. Reluctant as we may be to interfere with a sentence imposed by the trial Judge, we feel that in the circumstances of this case 7 days' imprisonment is manifestly inadequate. We take the view that it should at least be doubled; and exercising our powers under section 145 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Law (Cap. 155) we increase the sentence to one of 14 clays imprisonment, to run from the date of conviction.
In the result the appeal against conviction is dismissed and the appeal against sentence results in an increased sentence of 14 days imprisonment from the 20th August, 1968.
Appeal dismissed.
Sentence increased as stated above.