|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1988) 2 CLR 51
1988 April 25
(MALACHTOS, STYLIANIDES, PIKIS, JJ.)
CHRISTOS CHARALAMBOUS SAVVIDES,
Appellant,
v.
THE REPUBLIC,
Respondent.
(Criminal Appeal No. 4947).
Sentence - Housebreaking and theft of £600.- contrary to sections 292(a) and 255 of the Criminal Code - 13 similar offences involving theft of £1,000.- taken into consideration - Appellant, aged 171/2. at the time of the commission of offences, co-operated with the Police, showed sincere repentance, compensated his victims - Social report showed that the offences were out of appellant's character, having been committed at a time the appellant was suffering from emotional stress - Two years' imprisonment - Reduced to one year's imprisonment.
Sentence - Young offenders - Deterrence must be balanced by interest of society in their reform --- They should not leave the Court with the impression that society has written them off.
The facts of this case appear sufficiently in the headnote.
Appeal allowed. Sentences reduced
to one year's imprisonment.
Cases referred to:
Philippou v. The Republic (1983) 2 C.L.R. 245;
Psylla v. The Republic (1984) 2 C.L.R. 420;
Nicolaou v. The Republic (1985) 2 C.L.R. 52;
Ioannou and Another v. The Police (1986) 2 C.L.R. 149.
Appeal against sentence.
Appeal against sentence by Christos Charalambous Savvides who was convicted on the 6th November, 1987 by the Military Court sitting at Nicosia (Cases Nos. 522/87 and 535/87) on one count of the offence of house breaking and stealing contrary to sections 292(a) and 255 of the Criminal Code Cap. 154 and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
M Iacovou, for the appellant.
P. loulianos, for the respondent.
MALACHTOS J.: The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Pikis J.
PIKIS J.: The appellant was convicted on his own plea on a charge of house breaking and theft of £600. (contrary to s.292(a) and s.255 - Cap.154); and was sentenced by the military court to two years' imprisonment. In passing sentence the Court took into consideration, at the request of the appellant, 13 similar offences involving the theft of a total amount of £1,000. After arrest the appellant readily admitted the commision of the offfence and volunteered information leading the police to uncover and detect the remaining offences.
Evidently the appellant was overwhelmed by feelings of remorse and a desire to make a clean breast with his criminal escapades that brought him for the first time before justice. At the time of the commision of the offfences the appellant was aged 17 1/2. He was a conscript of the National Guard, temporarily released because of stress. As a matter of fact he was given leave of absence for one year to enable him to cope with psychological problems that troubled him after the break up of a love affair. The reports produced before the Court indicated that the commission of the offences was out of the character of the appellant and that they had been committed at a time when appellant laboured under emotional stress.
Not only the appellant gave token of his repentance by the admission of the offence and disclosure of details of other crimes committed by himself, but also made amends to the victims of his crimes by returning £1,400.-of the stolen money. Furthermore, his family and himself intend to compensate the remaining victims by the repayment of an amount of £200.- Although the trial Court did direct itself correctly respecting the gravity of offences of house - breaking that recently assumed, because of their frequency, dimensions of a social evil and to the extenuating circumstances that justified leniency, nonetheless, the Court felt constrained to impose the fairly long sentence of two years' imprisonment.
The sentence is challenged only on one ground: as manifestly excessive. For the appellant to succeed it must be demonstrated that the element of excess is glaring and as such objectively noticeable.
Counsel for the Republic argued that the sentence of two years' imprisonment is in line with the sentencing policy adopted by the Supreme Court for the punishment of housebreaking offenders; evidenced by the decisions in Psylla v. Republic and Nicolaou v. Republic. In neither of the above cases did the Supreme Court aim to establish an inflexible norm for the punishment of housebreaking, whereas the facts of each of the above cases and circumstances of the offenders are perfectly distinguishable from the corresponding facts of this case.
A more pertinent decision and one apt to illuminate the sentencing framework for the punishment of young offenders convicted of house-breaking and theft is that of Ioannou and Another v. Police In that case too the Supreme Court was concerned with the punishment of a youth of 17 convicted of shop-breaking and theft. The fact that crimes of this nature assumed proportions of a social evil «could not obliterate the need to individualize the sentence in light of the youth of the appellant and absence of previous convictions». Significantly, the Court added the following: «The emphasis laid on deterrence by the learned trial Judge was misplaced for in the case of young offenders it must be balanced by the strong interest of society in the reform of the accused».
The Military Court failed or omitted to attach the weight due to the extenuating circumstances stemming from the youth of the appellant, his clean record, his repentance and the amends to the victims of his crime. The failure of the trial Court to individualize the sentence to the extent necessary to reflect the personal circumstances of the appellant, rendered the sentence manifestly excessive entitling this Court to interfere and set it aside and we so direct. The sentence of one year's imprisonment is, in our judgment, an appropriate punishment for the appellant. It reflects the gravity of the offence and the duty owed to society to observe the law on the one hand and the interest of the appellant and society in this reform on the other. Young offenders should never leave the Court with the impression that society has written them off.
In the result the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Military Court is set aside. A sentence of one year's imprisonment is substituted.
Appeal allowed.