|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1987) 2 CLR 223
1987 October 30
[TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., LORIS, STYLIANIDES, JJ.]
ARAXIE KRIKOR PAREKIAN,
Appellant,
v.
THE REPUBLIC,
Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 4874).
Sentence — Possessing narcotic drugs (1210 grams of heroin) for the purpose of supplying them to another person in Spain — Four years' imprisonment — Appellant, a Lebanese woman, the mother of three minor children — New facts relating to her family circumstances came to light after sentence — Such new facts justify reduction of sentence to three years and three months' imprisonment.
The appellant was arrested while on her way to Spain. She had in her possession the aforesaid quantity of heroin. The appellant is a Lebanese woman with three minor children.
The social investigation report that was placed before the trial Court was not complete. The revised report, placed before this Court, showed that the husband of the appellant has suffered a heart attack as a result of her plight after she was arrested in Cyprus and is not in a position to work and that the father of the appellant, who, according to the first social investigation report would be looking after the children of the appellant, while she would be serving her prison sentence here, is an elderly man with severe health problems and needs to be looked after by his wife.
Held, allowing the appeal: (1) Deprivation of the children of the appellant of the care of their mother due to her imprisonment is not a reason for reducing the sentence passed on the appellant, because, no matter how much the children of the appellant will suffer, children and grown up all over the world are bound to suffer much more if persons such as the appellant are not deterred by severe sentences from embarking on trafficking of narcotic drugs.
(2) This Court has to speculate as what the trial Court would have done, if the' correct social investigation report had been placed before it. The appellant should be given the benefit of the doubt. The sentence will be reduced to one of imprisonment for three years and three months.
Appeal allowed.
Cases referred to:
Sultan v. The Republic (1983) 2 C.L.R. 121;
El-Etri v. The Republic (1985) 2 C.L.R. 40;
Zreka v. The Republic (1986) 2 C.L.R. 134.
Appeal against sentence.
Appeal against sentence by Araxie Krikor Parekian who was convicted on the 12th May, 1987 at the Assize Court of Lamaca (Criminal Case No. 3857/87) on one count of the offence of possessing narcotic drugs contrary to sections 2,3, 6(1)(2), 30 and 31 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Law, 1977 (Law No. 29 of 1977) (as amended by Law 67/83) and was sentenced by Papadopoulos, P.D.C., Eliades and Arestis, DJJ. to four years' imprisonment.
Ph. derides, for the appellant.
A M. Angelides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents.
TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. gave the following judgment of the Court. The appellant, a Lebanese citizen, was sentenced, on 12 May 1987, to four years' imprisonment, on her own plea of guilty, for the offence of possessing narcotic drugs, namely 1210 grams of heroin, for the purpose of supplying it to another person in Spain.
At the time when she was arrested at Lamaca Airport she was actually on her way from Cyprus to Spain via Athens, having arrived on the same day by ship from Lebanon.
She immediately gave a full statement to the Police disclosing all the details of how she came to be involved in the commission of this crime.
We have heard carefully learned counsel for the appellant and for he respondent. Neither of them minimizes the severity of the offence which the appellant has committed and there is no doubt that the courts in Cyprus have a duty both to the people of Cyprus and, within the context of the comity of nations, to the peoples of other countries as well, to punish severely offences of trafficking in narcotic drugs irrespective of whether such drugs are being brought to Cyprus for use here or are being taken to another country via Cyprus.
The case-law of this Court (see, inter alia, Sultan v. The Republic, (1983) 2 C.L.R. 121, El-Etri v. The Republic, (1985) 2 C.L.R. 40 and Zreka v. The Republic, (1986) 2 C.L.R. 134) leaves no room for doubt or hesitation in this respect and unfortunately, judging from the cases which have been coming recently before our courts it seems that the offences of trafficking in narcotic drugs are becoming even more frequent, thus making necessary even more severe sentences.
Learned counsel for the appellant has stressed that the appellant is a mother of three children, two of whom are of rather young age, and has argued that as a result of the incarceration of the appellant her children, who are in Lebanon, have been deprived of the maternal care which the appellant, a married woman forty-one years old, would have bestowed on them.
The appellant appears to have been a good mother and housewife who has known better days and has been recently suffering financial privations due to the calamity that befell Lebanon.
Unfortunately in a case of this nature we cannot treat the deprivation of the children of the appellant of the care of their mother due to her imprisonment as a reason for reducing the sentence passed on the appellant, because no matter how much the children of the appellant will suffer as a result of the sentence passed on her, children and grown ups all over the world are bound to suffer much more if persons such as the appellant are not deterred by severe sentences from embarking on nefarious errands of narcotic drugs trafficking.
There is, however, an aspect of this case which has given us a lot of concern and this is the fact that the social investigation report i which was placed before the trial court was incomplete in some respects and misleading in other respects, due apparently to the difficulties of the welfare officer, who prepared it, to communicate adequately with sources in Lebanon from which he had to obtain relevant information.
It is, indeed, very gratifying that the same welfare officer has prepared and placed before us a revised report. We, thus, know now that the husband of the appellant has suffered a heart attack as a result of her plight after she was arrested in Cyprus and is not in a position to work and this is not mentioned at all in the first social investigation report; and the father of the appellant, who, according to the first social investigation report would be looking after the children of the appellant while she would be serving her prison sentence here, is, as there appears from the second such report, an elderly man with severe health problems and needs to be looked after by his wife.
We are faced, therefore, with a situation in which we have to speculate regarding what the trial court would have done if it had the second, correct, social investigation report before it at the time when it passed sentence upon the appellant. We are bound to give to the appellant in this respect the benefit of any doubt in the sense that we have to lean to the side of leniency in her favour and impose on her a sentence of less severity which the trial Court might justifiably, in our opinion, have imposed if it had before it the correct social investigation report.
Making every possible allowance in favour of the appellant we do not think that it would have been warranted for the trial court to impose on her a sentence of imprisonment for a period less than three years and three months, even if it had before it the social investigation report which is now before us.
We, therefore, reduce accordingly the sentence passed on the appellant and this appeal is allowed to that extent.
Appeal allowed.