clr/1962/1962_1_220.pdf

(3)of the Courts ofJusticeLaw, i960. The appellant was convicted on her own plea of perjury and sentenced to afine in the sum of £25 and to one day's imprison­ ment. On appeal by the Attorney-General from that sentence under section 25

(3)of the Courts of Justice Law, I960, the High Court increased the sentence to one of two years'. Held : (I) The view of the majority of the Court is that the penalty imposed by the trial Judge will be set aside and she will be sentenced to a term of two years' imprisonment.

(2)The trial Judge rightly stated that this is a most serious offence but, with the greatest respect, we differ from his views as to the penalty to be imposed. Against a male offender the sentence we are to pronounce would, undoubtedly, be much heavier than what we intend to impose,upon the accused. The Courts nearly always display some leniency towards women. and we adopt that view here.

(3)Per ZEKIA, J. ; In his partly dissenting judgment : Taking into consideration the tragic circumstances under which she lost her husband and also the agonies she wenr through by the murder of her husband plus the fact that she has a child of nine years who needs the care of a mother, I would be content if the sentence was increased to one of six months rather than of two years.

(4)Per VASS/L/AOESJ. : Κ I were to measure the sentence provided by law, on the circumstances of this case, without 220 .if* ϋΛ~ - V * " * ' taking into account the compassionate grounds which have affected the opinion of my brother Zekia Bey, I must say that I would be inclined t o think that a term of four or five years imprisonment might well be justifiable. 1962 Sept. 28 THE ATTORNEY" UENFRAL v. t'HKVSO P H I V O U Public security rests to a considerable extent on the assist­ ance of the public in the detection of the criminal. And when such assistance takes the form of evidence it must be suffi­ ciently protected and sufficiently respected by all concerned. In this particular case the Court in passing sentence on this poor woman had to take into account her tragic circumstances. But, along side with them, It had to take into account also the public interest ; and the duty to apply the law in an effective manner. I am perhaps'as sorry as Zekia Bey is for the distress which has be fallen this woman and her child. On the other hand, I must say that It Is with great reluctance that I have brought myself to agree with other members of this Court on what I consider an extremely lenient sentence for the facts of this case ; a term of two years' Imprisonment. Appeal allowed. Sentence increased to one of two years' imprisonment. Appeal against sentence by the Attorney-General of the Republic. The respondent was convicted on the 4/7/62 at the District Court o f Nicosia (Cr. Case N o . 13343/62) on one count o f the offence o f perjury contrary to ss. 110 and 111 o f the Criminal Code, Cap. 154 and was sentenced by Pierides, D.J. to one day'.s imprisonment and £25.--- fine. Γ. Aziz IOI the appellant. •I. liitiiiitilvHidcs for the respondent. Wn SON. I* : I his is an appeal by the Attoiney.-(icnaal of ιhe Republic 1'iom ;i sentence o f one day's imprisonment and a fine of t'25 imposed by the District Com I o f Nicosia upon the accused on July 4, l % 2 , following a pica o f guilty to a charge o f perjury contrary to sections 110 and I I I o f the 221 . SFAVRNWU 1962 Sept. 28 Criminal Code, Cap. 154, appearing in count 1of thechargesheet on June, 22nd 1962. Ut-.INf.KAI. Upon a second count alleging contradictory statements . by a witness, contrary to sections 113

(1)(a) and 111 of the Criminal ("ode. Cap. 154, no evidence was offered and the accused was discharged. V. G'HKVSO PHIVOU STAVRHJOU Wilson, P. Thetwocharges arose out of thecontradictory statements made on oath during the preliminary inquiry and at the trial of one Christakis P. Petrides of Korakou who was charged with murder, and upon which he was acquitted. The case turned largely on the evidence of the accused. Before the trial judge the accused was represented by a very experienced and able counsel. There was no doubt that the plea of guilty was entered at the full knowledge of what such a plea entailed. I mention this only because of the arguments put forward by her counsel on the appeal to the effect that this Court should enquire behind the proceedings which took place before the trialjudge, in our opinion that was unnecessary'. Coming to the offence itself, it is one of the serious offences. To protect the public, the representatives of the people have seen fit to impose a maximum penalty of 7years. it is a difficult one to prove and in this case the Court cannot take a light view of what has occurred. The trial judge rightly stated that this is a most serious offence but, with the greatest respect, we differ from his views as to the penalty to be imposed. Against a male offender the sentence we are to pronounce would, undoubtedly, be much heavier than what weintendto imposeupon the accused. The Courts nearly always display some leniency towards women, and we adopt that view here. The view of the majority of the Court is that the penalty imposed by the trial judge will be set aside and she will be sentenced to a term of 2 years* imprisonment. The members of the Court are not unanimous with respect to the term to be imposed. I will ask Mr. Justice Zekia to be good enough to deliver his opinion. 222 ZBKIA, J. : Taking into consideration the tragic ciicumstances under which she losl-her husband and also the agonies she went through by the murder of her husband plus the fact that she has a child of 9 years who needs the care of a mother, I would be content if the sentence was increased 10 one of 6 months lather than of 2 years. .', VASSII IADLS. J. : In view of the divergence o\' opinion legarding the sentence in this case, and the aspect taken by my brother Zekia Bey' in thisconnection, Ϊ feel that 1 must state my views on the matter. This is a serious offence as everyone apparently realises, and as the sentence provided by law clearly implies. It was committed in a murder case, the terrible circumstances of which I need not stress. Everyone concerned with the case including the woman in the dock, cannot fail to appreciate the gravity of the trial in which the perjury under considera­ tion was committed. If I were to measure the sentence provided by law, on the circumstances of this case, without taking into account the compassionate grounds which have affected the opinion of my brother Zekia Bey, I must say that I would be inclined to think that a term of 4 or 5 years' imprisonment might well be justifiable. Public security rests to a considerable extent on the assistance of the public in the detection of the criminal. And when such assistance takes the form of evidence it must be sufficiently protected, and sufficiently respected by all con­ cerned. In this particular case the Court in passing sentence on this poor woman had to take into account her tragic circums­ tances. But, along side with them, had .to take into account also the public interest ; and the duty to apply the law in an elVeciive manner. I am perhaps as sorry as Zekia Hey is for the distress which has befallen this woman and her child." On (he oilier hand, I must bay that it is with gieal icluctance that I have brought myself to agree with other members of this Court. on what I consider an extremely lenient sentence for the facts of this case : a term,of 2 years' ^imprisonment. 223 1962 Sept. 28 T H E ATTORNEYGENERAL v. CHRYSO PHIVOU STAVRIDOU JOSEPHIDES, J. : Γ agree with the reasons given andthe conclusion reached bv the Honourable the President of this Court. Appeal allowed. Sen­ tence increased intoone of two years* imprison­ ment. 224