ZAVRANTONAS ν. POLICE
(1984)2 CLR 15 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
(1984)2 CLR 15 1984 February 15 [A. Loizou, Malachtos And Savvides, JJ.] ANTONIS MICHAEL ZAVRANTONAS, Appellant, v. THE POLICE, Respondents. (Criminal Appeal No. 4486). Criminal Law-Sentence-Store-breaking-Repentance-Confession, plea of guilty and psychological condition of the appellant-Duly taken into consideration-Sentence of 8 months' imprisonment- Not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The appellant was found guilty on his own plea and sentenced to eight months' imprisonment on two counts of store-breaking, contrary to sections 291, 294(
- b)and 255 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154. The particulars for the first count were that having committed felony within the store of Leonidas Lagou, of Idalion that is, having stolen five sacks of fish meal worth C£72.500 mils and six sacks of soya worth C£43.500 mils, property of the said person, broke out of the store. The particulars for the second count were that having committed the felony within the store of the said complainant, that is, having stolen eight sacks of barley worth £15.- property of the complainant, broke out of the said store. The Court in passing sentence also took into consideration another criminal case which was pending against the appellant in respect of two counts, one of attempting to break into the store of the same complainant and the second count for breaking into a store belonging to Christos Zavos and stealing there from animal fodder worth C£600. Upon appeal against sentence Counsel for the appellant contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive because: (
- a)The trial Judge in imposing the sentence used a wrong method in as much as instead of following the individualization approach he used the tariff approach. (
- b)The appellant had an immature personality got depressed when something goes wrong in his life and that he needed further treatment with psychotropic medication and supportive psychotherapy. (
- c)The appellant has repented and confessed and has compensated the complainant. Held, that bearing in mind that the offences committed by the appellant carry a maximum, term of imprisonment of seven years each, and also that the trial Judge could have imposed on each count a maximum sentence of three years and taking into consideration what the learned trial Judge has said about the case, the sentence imposed is neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle; accordingly the appeal must fail. Held, further, that whatever it can be said about the significance of repentance, whatever importance can be attached to the confession, the plea of guilty and the personal circumstances of an accused person no doubt a Sentence of imprisonment of eight months could not in the circumstances be considered as in any way excessive or that the learned trial Judge used a wrong method in arriving at it or that he did not pay the necessary attention to any factor that was placed before him. Appeal dismissed. Observations: It is proper if separate sentences are imposed in respect of separate counts. Cases referred to: Bitar and Another v. Police
(1980)2 C.L.R. 225 at p. 229; Pouris and Another v. Police
(1983)2 C.L.R. 178; Manoli v. Republic
(1974)2 C.L.R. 4; Georghiou v. Republic
(1972)2 C.L.R. 72. Appeal against sentence. Appeal against sentence by Antonis Michael Zavrantonas who was convicted on the 22nd November, 1983 at the District Court of Nicosia (Criminal Case No. 8223/83) on two counts of the offence of store-breaking contrary to sections 291, 294(
- b)and 255 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154 and was sentenced by Laoutas, S.D.J. to eight months' imprisonment on both counts. Chr. Triantafyllides, for the appellant. A. M. Angelides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. A. LOIZOU J. gave the following judgment of the Court. The appellant was found guilty on his own plea and sentenced to eight months' imprisonment on two counts of store-breaking, contrary to sections 291, 294(
- b)and 255 of the Criminal Code, Cap.154. The particulars for the first count were that he, between the 17th and 19th January, 1983, at locality "Alikos" in the area of Idalion, district of Nicosia, having committed a felony within the store of Leonidas Lagou, of Idalion, that is, having stolen five sacks of fish meal worth C£72.500 mils and six sacks of soya worth C£43.500 mils, property of the said person, broke out of the store. The particulars for the second count were that on the 22nd January, 1983, having committed the felony within the store of the said complainant, that is, having stolen eight sacks of barley worth C£15.- property of the complainant, broke cut of the said store. The Court in passing sentence also took into consideration Criminal Case No. 13527/83 which was pending against the appellant in respect of two counts, one of attempting to break into the store of the same complainant and the second count for breaking into a store belonging to Christos Zavos and stealing there from animal fodder worth C£600. The appellant who comes from Oroklini village is 40 years of age, married with two children, aged 5 and 3, and resides at Idalion. He is a breeder of pigs and he has a farm in that area. His property, including immovable property, is worth C£60,000.- and his wife has a house used as their residence worth about C£30,000. On the 22nd January, 1983, at night time, the appellant went with his car to the pigs breeding farm of the complainant, who is his brother-in-law, parked his car there and entered through an open window into the pigsty which communicates with the store in which he filled eight sacks with barley and loaded them on his car. The complainant went to his store where he saw the car of the appellant parked outside it and loaded with the barley. He stopped his own pick-up car exactly behind the car of the appellant in order to prevent it from being driven away. He locked his car and went to his house to discuss the matter with his wife. Whilst there the appellant came and requested him to go to his store and move his car in order to make him room to leave. There and then the complainant informed him that he would report him to the Police and the appellant left driving his wife's car. Later that night the complainant went with the Police to his store, saw that the car of the complainant with the barley had been driven away and later by virtue of a Court warrant they searched the car of the appellant, found the barley and the latter admitted the offence. He made a voluntary statement in which he admitted also the offence subject-matter of the first count and those in Criminal Case No. 13527/83. Learned counsel for the appellant in arguing this appeal before us on the ground that the sentence imposed by the trial Judge was manifestly excessive, has divided his arguments into two legs. The first, that the trial Judge in imposing the sentence used a wrong method in as much as instead of following the individualization approach he used the tariff approach, and the second leg that certain material factors which were placed before him were either not taken into consideration or not given due weight. In support of his argument counsel has referred us to the remarks and comments of the trial Judge to be found in the reasons given by him in passing sentence and to a number of authorities including relevant passages from Principles of sentencing by D. Thomas, 2nd Edition, pages 8, 9, 11 and 24, dealing with the individualization of sentence and the issues arising regarding offenders in need of psychiatric treatment. The case of Bitar and Another v. The Police
(1980)2 C.L.R. 225, at p. 229, on the significance of the repentance after arrest, the case of Pouris and Others v. The Republic
(1983)2 C.L.R., p. 178, as well as the case of Jason Manoli v. The Republic
(1974)2 C.L.R., p. 4, and Christakis Georghiou v. The Republic
(1972)2 C.L.R., p. 72. He also drew our attention to the psychological condition of the appellant as emanating from the psychiatric report which had been placed before the trial Judge, and in which it is stated that the appellant has an immature personality, gets depressed when something goes wrong in his life and that he needs further treatment with psychotropic medication and supportive psychotherapy. On the second leg of the argument our attention was drawn to the various elements in support of which the cases earlier referred to have been as useful to bear out the argument about the significance of repentance or confession, the fact that both complainants have been compensated and, most important of all, as urged by counsel for the appellant, that the personal presence of the appellant at his farm is most essential and that his detention at the prison will have very serious consequences on him and his family. We have paid due regard to what has been said by counsel and we have looked at the reasons given by the trial Judge in passing sentence which revealed his way of thinking as regards these issues that were also very ably raised before him by counsel. The learned trial Judge after dealing exhaustively with the seriousness of the offences, committed by the appellant, turned to the personal circumstances of the offender and imposed the sentence of eight months' imprisonment. Bearing in mind that the offences committed by the appellant carry a maximum term of imprisonment of seven years each, and also that the learned trial Judge could have imposed on each count a maximum sentence of three years and taking into consideration what the learned trial Judge has said about the case, we find that the sentence imposed is neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. Whatever it can be said about the significance of repentance, whatever importance can be attached to the confession, the plea of guilty and the personal circumstances of an accused person no doubt a sentence of imprisonment of eight months could not in the circumstances be considered as in any way excessive or that the learned trial Judge used a wrong method in arriving at it or that he did not pay the necessary attention to any factor that was placed before him. On the contrary the leniency in our view shown by the trial Judge indicates the considerable importance he attached to the personal circumstances of the appellant and his conduct after his arrest by the Police. It is indeed unfortunate that a man of such wealth and with so much family and business responsibilities have found himself in this position for which he has only himself to blame. Before concluding, however, we would like to point out that the learned trial Judge in imposing sentence spoke only of "eight months' imprisonment on both counts" and did not impose a separate sentence on each count which constituted a separate offence and were not alternative to each other. On this point we would like to intimate that it is proper if separate sentences are imposed in respect of separate counts in such circumstances if there is a successful appeal against conviction on one count there will arise no problem as to what would have been the sentence on the count on which the conviction is confirmed or so that a convicted person and this Court, if there is an appeal against sentence, will know which is the sentence in respect of each separate count. For all the above reasons this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. cylaw.org: Από το ΚΙΝOΠ/CyLii για τον Παγκύπριο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο