|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
Δεν έχει εντοπιστεί νομοθεσία ή απόφαση ή δικονομικός θεσμός στον οποίο να κάνει αναφορά η απόφαση αυτή
Μεταγενέστερη νομολογία η οποία κάνει αναφορά στην απόφαση αυτή:
(1976) 2 CLR 111
1976 June 4
[TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., STAVRINIDES, L. LOIZOU, JJ.]
THEODOROS CHRISTODOULOU TSIELEPOS,
Appellant,
v.
THE REPUBLIC,
Respondent.
(Criminal Appeal No. 3688).
Criminal Law—Sentence—Concurrent sentences of three years' and eighteen months' imprisonment for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition—Seriousness of offence of illicit possession of a firearm—And need to be treated with the utmost severity by the Courts especially since the coup d'etat of 1974—Appeal dismissed.
Firearms—Possession—Sentence—Seriousness of offence—Need to be treated with the utmost severity—Especially since the coup d'etat of 1974.
The appellant pleaded guilty to the offences of possessing unlawfully a firearm and ammunition and was sentenced to concurrent sentences of three years' and eighteen months' imprisonment. In the social investigation report there was nothing to be found which could lead the Court of Appeal to think that the sentence imposed on the appellant should have been more lenient in view of any personal circumstances of his.
The appellant appealed against sentence:
Held, (1) illicit possession of a firearm is an offence which is very serious, more than ever before, in this country (see Lokatzis v. The Republic (1973) 2 J.S.C. 203); and since the coup d'etat which was attempted in the summer of 1974 it is plainly obvious that this offence should be visited with the utmost severity by the Courts.
(2) We would not, therefore, be justified at all if, in the absence of any substantial special mitigating factors, we were to reduce the sentences imposed on the appellant.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases referred to:
Lokatzis v. The Republic (1973) 2 J.S.C. 203.
Appeal against sentence.
Appeal against sentence by Theodoros Christodoulou Tsielepos who was convicted on the 6th February, 1976 at the Assize Court of Limassol (Criminal Case No. 20531/75) on two counts of the offence of possessing a firearm contrary to section 4(1)(2)(b) and 28 of the Firearms Law, 1974 (Law 38/74) and of possessing ammunition contrary to section 4(4)(d) of the Explosive Substances Law, Cap. 54 (as amended by Law No. 21/70) and was sentenced by Loris, P.D.C. Hadjitsangaris, S.D.J. and Anastassiou, D.J. to concurrent terms of three years' and eighteen months' imprisonment, respectively.
P. Ioannides, for the appellant.
A. M. Angelides, Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by:-
TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.: The appellant complains against the concurrent sentences of three years' and eighteen months' imprisonment, respectively, which were passed upon him by an Assize Court in Limassol in respect of the offences of possessing unlawfully a firearm and ammunition to which he pleaded guilty.
The sentences have been challenged before us today as being manifestly excessive and wrong in principle. The main ground on which counsel for the appellant has relied is the fact that, admittedly, the appellant had been acting in the past as a police informer; and the appellant has alleged that he was carrying the firearm and ammunition for reasons of self-protection as, due to his conduct as an informer, he had been receiving threatening telephone calls.
When, however, the police stopped the car of the appellant for a search he did not explain to them at once that, and why, he was in possession of a gun, which would have been the natural thing to do for a person who had been co-operating with the police and who had been threatened for doing so; on the contrary, he denied initially any knowledge of the existence of the gun when it was found, and said that it was not his; later on, however, he admitted that it was his own gun and only then he put forward the explanation that he was carrying it for his own protection.
In the social investigation report which was placed before the Assize Court there is nothing to be found which could lead us to think that the sentence imposed on the appellant should have been more lenient in view of any personal circumstances of his; on the contrary, he appears to have a very irresponsible attitude towards his family life; he has deserted his wife and he is living with another woman, and the fact that he is maintaining his family by paying C£30 per month is not really something to be taken in his favour because he had to be forced to do so by means of a judicial order.
We do agree with counsel for the respondent that the illicit possession of a firearm is an offence which is very serious, more than ever before, in this country; this was already stressed in, for example, Lokatzis v. The Republic, (1973) 2 J.S.C. 203, and since the coup d'etat which was attempted in the summer of 1974 it is plainly obvious that the crime of possessing weapons unlawfully should be visited with the utmost severity by the Courts; therefore, we would not be justified at all if, in the absence of any substantial special mitigating factors, we were to reduce the sentences imposed on the appellant.
His role as a police informer is a matter best known to the Government, as regards, especially, the extent of his contribution as a informer; if, therefore, there is room for special leniency it is for the Executive to consider the matter in the exercise of its own competence at the appropriate time.
In the result this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.
Appeal dismissed.