EVANGELOS PANAYIOTOU PAVLOU ν. THE REPUBLIC
(1964)1 CLR 97 ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ CyLaw | Αναφορικά μ'εμάς | " target="_top">Επικοινωνία | Όροι χρήσης Έρευνα - Κατάλογος Αποφάσεων - Εμφάνιση Αναφορών (Noteup on) - Αρχείο σε μορφή PDF - Αφαίρεση Υπογραμμίσεων
(1964)1 CLR 97 1964 September 29 [ZEKIA, P., VASSILIADES, TRIANTAFYLLIDES, MUNIR AND JOSEPHIDES, JJ.] EVANGELOS PANAYIOTOU PAVLOU, Appellant, v. THE REPUBLIC, Respondent. (Criminal Appeal No. 2722) Criminal Law-Premeditated murder-Premeditation-The Criminal Code, Cap. 154, sections 203 and 204 as amended by section 5 of the Criminal Code (Amendment) Law, 1962. (Law No. 3 of 1962)-Disease of the mind not amounting to insanity within section 12 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154-It does not alter the nature of the offence of premeditated murder once the intention to kill was formed long before, and continued as such up to the time of the commission of the offence-Formation of intention to kill and premeditation-Long interval between conception of intention to kill and execution of the crime. The appellant in the instant case caused the death of his mother by delivering several blows with. an adze on her head while the latter was lying asleep on a bed in a room shared by him and the victim and was convicted by the Assize Court of Famagusta on one count of the offence of premeditated murder, contrary to section 203 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154, as amended by section 5 of Law 3 of 1962 and was sentenced to death. The appeal was mainly argued on the point that the prisoner being afflicted with a disease of mind which deprived him of the power of self-control and also being a person of a very low intellect, his reasoning power almost lacking, was disabled from committing an offence with premeditation. Held,
(1)Once the mental condition of the prisoner falls short than that of an insane person, who is not criminally responsible, as defined in section 12 of the Criminal Code, it is difficult even to argue, in the light of the facts of this case, a homicidal offence without premeditation. Appellant conceived the idea of killing his mother long before the time of killing, and he planned to kill and made use of a lethal weapon and delivered several blows on the head of the victim when she was asleep and could not defend herself or escape the blows.
(2)Although there was a long interval between the time the prisoner conceived the killing of his mother and the time he executed his intention, it was submitted that owing to the disease of mind affecting him he could not avail himself or he could do very little by reflecting on the terrible consequences of his act and could not desist from his original plan. In our view this does not alter the nature of the offence once the intention to kill was a calculated one from the very start, or became so before the intention was put into execution and continued as such upto the time of the commission of the offence. Appeal dismissed. Appeal. The appellant was convicted on the 18.6.64 at the Assize Court of Famagusta (Criminal Case No. 1381/64) on one count of the offence of premeditated murder contrary to section 203 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154, as amended by section 5 of Law 3 of 1962 and was sentenced by Michaelides P.D.C., Orphanides and Kourris D.JJ. to death. A. Ch. Pouyouros, for the appellant. L. G. Loucaides, Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the judgment of the Court delivered by:- ZEKIA, P.: The appellant in this case caused the death of a certain Margarita Panayiotou Pavlou of Varosha, his mother, on the 10th April, 1964, by delivering several blows with an adze on her head while the latter was lying asleep on a bed in a room shared by him and the victim. This was a horrible crime committed by a son against a loving mother. The heinousness of the offence however should never be allowed to interfere with the application of law and justice and with a fair trial to which the appellant and indeed anybody who comes before a Court of law is entitled. A perusal of the records of the trial court fully satisfied us that appellant not only had a fair trial but the evidence touching his plea of insanity and his mental condition as to possessing very limited power of self control after his feelings were aroused, was exchaustively examined. We make these remarks not because there was any allegation as to the fairness of the trial but in appreciation of the great care the Court below has given to this unfortunate case. The learned counsel of the appellant did not insist before us on the defence of insanity and frankly conceded that the evidence could not support such a plea. In fact his submission before us amounted to an amplification of the statements contained on ground 3 of the notice of appeal which ground reads as follows:- "
- The appellant was wrongly convicted of premeditated murder though there was ample evidence that on account of his mental disease he was deprived of the capacity to control himself, he was deprived of sufficient reasoning powers, he could not possibly have had the power to exercise self-control or the coolness of mind and all the other necessary elements to find him guilty of premeditated murder." The relevant facts of the case, leaving aside details, may be briefly stated as follows: The appellant an epileptic psychopath was admitted as a mental patient to the mental hospital in the year 1955 and kept there for treatment until
- He was released on parole in that year. He continued however to have treatment as an out-patient up to the commission of this offence. On the 8th April, 1964, the appellant stabbed a certain boy called Kyriakos Psaras. He was taken into custody and was released on the following day. On the day he was released, 9th April, 1964, at 5 p.m. he visited the house of his aunt Polyxeni Charalambous, where the victim, his mother, was present also. There the prisoner explained that he was taken to police custody for stabbing Kyriakos Psaras and that he was released. His aunt said "why did you do that?" Accused replied, "He made me angry and I stabbed him". Then the mother remarked, "Don't you know Evangele that you are now on parole and the doctor may take you back? " The prisoner got angry and left saying, "Never mind I will do the same to you". At about noon of the following day that is 10th April, 1964, as he disclosed in his evidence, he had made up his mind to kill his mother in consequence of certain remarks made to him by his uncle Costas in the shop of Mr. Attalides. In the evening of the same day sometime after 7.30 p.m. he called at Mantzalos' shop and borrowed from him one pound. He then went to Voskaris' coffee shop and borrowed the sum of 5/- from a certain Arsenos. His intention, he said, was to collect £2.10.0 to proceed to Nicosia in a taxi after he would have killed his mother. At 8 p.m. he went home. His mother was ironing in the kitchen. He returned to the bedroom which he shared with his mother. After taking two pills he laid over the cover of the bed and fell asleep. The mother woke him up and told him to lie down under the cover. The mother then went to her bed and fell asleep. Within a short time, i.e. 10 minutes, the prisoner got out of the room, went to the yard, put on the light, picked up an adze and after putting out the light, returned to the bedroom leaving the adze outside the room. He put on the light of the bedroom in order to ascertain the position of the head of the victim and having done so, he switched off the light, collected the adze which was nearby, and returned to the bed of his mother. There he mercilessly delivered several blows with the adze he was holding, on the head of his mother, until he was satisfied that all symptoms of life deserted her. Having completed this atrocious crime the prisoner covered the victim with a quilt and walked out to the yard, washed himself, changed his bloodstained clothes and shoes, and having locked the door of the house proceeded to the market and having secured a further loan of 10/-from a certain Nicos, visited Atlas Taxi Office and hired a car which took him to Nicosia to Dr. Mikellides' Clinic, to whom he stated that he had killed his mother. Doctor advised him to go to the police and give himself up, which he did. At 11:30 p.m. he went to the Paphos Gate Police station and found there P.C. Andreas Seymenis to whom he said: "I give myself up, I killed my mother at Varosha ". After having been cautioned' he continued: "Yes tonight at 9 p.m. I killed my mother with an adze while she was asleep in her room. I locked her in the room here is the key". The confession and the evidence of the prisoner as to the circumstances under which he killed his mother is fully corroborated by other independent evidence. These are briefly the facts of the case. The evidence for a deliberate and premeditated killing is overhelming. We feel that there is no need for us to refer to any definition or authority on the point of premeditation. This is such a clear case. Out of deference to the able counsel of the appellant we deal shortly with the point raised, namely, that the prisoner being afflicted with a disease of mind which deprived him of the power of self-control and also being a person of a very low intellect, his reasoning power almost lacking, was disabled from committing an offence with premeditation. Once the mental condition of the prisoner falls short than that of an insane person, who is not criminally responsible, as defined in section 12 of the Criminal Code, it is difficult even to argue, in the light of the facts of this case, a homicidal offence without premeditation. Appellant conceived the idea of killing his mother long before the time of killing, and he planned to kill and made use of a lethal weapon and delivered several blows on the head of the victim when she was asleep and could not defend herself or escape the blows. Although there was a long interval between the time the prisoner conceived the killing of his mother and the time he executed his intention, it was submitted that owing to the disease of mind affecting him, he could not avail himself or he could do very little by reflecting on the, terrible consequences of his act and could not desist from his original plan. In our view this does not alter the nature of the offence once the intention to kill was a calculated one from the very start, or became so before the intention was put into execution and continued as such up to the time of the commission of the offence. For these reasons we are of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. Appeal dismissed. cylaw.org: Από το ΚΙΝOΠ/CyLii για τον Παγκύπριο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο