1962 Ocl.-5. ; , [ W I L S O N , P., Ζ Π Κ Ι Α , VASSJLIADES and JOSEPHIDKS, JJ 1. A G A M E M N O N P A P A I O A N N O U , I. A G A M L M N O N PAPAIOANNUU 2. I:LbNi AtiAMfcMNONOS V. 2. EI.ENI AGAMEMNONOS Appellanh THh Pol ICh T H E POLICE Rvspondents. {Criminal Appeals No. 2538 ami 2538 {A)). Motor Traffic—Using and permitting to use a motor vehicle without a motor vehicle licence—The Motor Vehicles Regulations, 1959, regulations 18 and 66—Fee payable for such licence—Nopower conferred on thecourtsin sentencing theoffenderto order payment of the said fee. Sentence. In this case the first appellant was convicted by the District Court of Nicosia sitting at Lefka, of (
- a)driving a diesel motor lorry without a motor vehicle licence and sentenced to pay a fine of £5 and (
- b)driving a motor vehicle without a certifi cate of road worthiness and sentenced to pay a fine of £5. The second appellant, who is the wife of the first"appellant, was convicted of permitting the aforesaid lorry to be used (
- a)without a licence and (
- b)without a certificate of road worthi ness, and sentenced to pay a fine of £5 in respect of each count. Both appellants were further ordered by the trial Court to pay the sum of £27.100 mils by way of fees which they failed to pay in respect of the quarter for which the lorry ought t o have been licensed. They appealed against both conviction and sentence. Held : (I) The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
(2)No power is conferred on a Judge either by the statute or the regulations made thereunder (the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law, Cap. 332, as amended by Law 25 ofjl959, and the Motor Vehicles Regulations, 1959) to make the appel lants pay £27.100 mils fees, and consequently that part of the sentence cannot be supported and is accordingly set.aside.
(3)(ZEK/A. ). dissenting). W i t h regard to the fine of £5 232 Imposed on the first appellant, for driving adlesel motor lorry without a motor vehicle licence, we wouW observe that the fees payable for such a lorry are £27.100 mils per quarter,and this Court will not allow him to take advantage of his failure to pay the fees which he was bound to pay under the law. In the circumstances of the case we are of the view that the fine of £5 imposed on him is manifestly inadequate and we, accord ingly, raise the fine from £5 to £30 on count I.
(4)As regards the fine of £5 imposed on the first appellant on count 2 and the fine of £5 imposed on the second appellant on count 3 and £5 on count 4, we are of opinion that In the circumstances of this case the fines are adequate and we do not propose to disturb the order of the trial Judge. Appeal against conviction dis missed. Order for the pay ment of £27.100 mils set aside. Fine Imposed on 1st defendant Increasedfrom£5 to £30.All otherfines to remain tbe^aine, Appeal against conviction and seritence. The appellants were convicted^pn the 20.7.62 at the Dis trict Court^ofilsiicosial· sitting at Lefka, (Cr. Case No. 850/62) on 2 counts each, of the following offences : 1. Appellant No. 1 : (a) For driving a motor vehicle without- a motor vehicle licence contrary to ss. 18 and 66 of the Motor Vehicles Regulations 1959 and.s. 13 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law Cap. 332 as amended by law No. 25/59. b) For driving a motor vehicle without a certificate of road-worthiness, contrary to ss. 62
(4)' and 66 of ihc Motor Vehicles Regulations, 1959 and s. 13 of ihc Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law Cap. 332 as amended by Law No. 25/59. 2. Appellant No. 2 :
- a)For permitting a motor vehicle to be used without a motor vehicle licence contrary to ss. 18 and 66 of the Motor Vehicles Regulations 1959 and s. 13 of the Motor Vehicles and road'Traffic Law Cap. 332 as amended by Law No. 25/59.
- b)For permitting a motor vehicle to be used without a 233 1963 Oct. 5. 1. AOAMFMN·'^ PAPAKMNKIU 2. ELENI A G A M E M N O N , I- v. T H E P O I Κ l· J** 2 , — ' ΡΛ*Α™ΝΜ3 2. FLI.NI A.iAMhMNONos ιΜ^ Ρ'.ι.κι certificate of road-worthiness contrary to ss. 62 and 66 of the Motor Vehicles Regulations 1959 and s. 13 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law Cap. 332 as amended by Law No.25/59,and were sentenced by Papaioannou D J . to pay f i ( j countsand appellant a fine o f £ 5 e a c n o n e a c h o f t n e a o r c s a No. 2 was furthermore ordered lo pay theamount of €27.100 mils as fees. A. PapaGeorghioufor the appellants. V. Aziz for the Respondents. WILSON, P. : Mr. Justice Josephides will deliver the judgment of the majority of the Members of the Court, to be followed by Mr. Justice Zekia who will give his judgment. Jost-i'HiDES, J. : In this case the first appellant was convicted by the District Court of Nicosia sitting at Lefka, of (
- a)driving a diesel motor lorry without a motor vehicle licence and sentenced to pay a fine of £5, and (
- b)driving a motor vehicle without a certificate of road worthiness and sentenced to pay a fine of £5. The second appellant, who is the wife of the first appellant; wasconvicted of permitting the aforesaid lorry to beused (
- a)withouL a licence and (
- b)without a certificate of road worthiness, and sentenced to pay a fine of £5 in respect of each count. Both appellants were further ordered by the trial Court to pay the sum of £27.100 mils by way of fees which they failed to pay in respect of the quarter for which the lorry ought to have been licensed. The appeal is both against conviction and sentence. First as to conviction : The learned counsel for the appellants has today directed our attention to certain parts of the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants which, he submitted, the trial judge ought to have accepted but which. in fact, he rejected. What the trialjudge said in hisjudgment was that he did not believe the evidence adduced by the first appellant and his witnesses and that he considered the whole evidence adduced by the defence as fabricated. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants we are not satisfied that thefinding of the trialjudge iswrong and the appeal against conviction is, accordingly, dismissed. 234 Now, astothesentence imposed, thetrialjudge ordered both appellants lo pay£27.100 mils fees. No such power is conferred on ajudge-either in the statute or the regulations madethereunder (the-Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law, Cap.332, as amended by Law 25 of 1959, and the Motor Vehicles Regulations, 1959)and,consequently, thatpanofthe sentence cannot be supported andit isaccordingly setaside. With regard tothefineof £5imposed on thefirstappellant, fordriving adiesel motor lorry without a motor vehicle licence, we would observe that the fees payable for such a lorry are £27.100 mils per quarter, and this Court will not allow him to take advantage of his failure to pay the fees which he wasbound to pay under thelaw. Inthecircumstances of thecase weareof the view that thefineof £5 imposed on himis manifestly inadequate and we, accordingly, raise the'fine from £5to £30on count1 Asregaj^the.fineof £5imposed on thefirstappellant on count 2 and.the fine of £5imposed onthesecond appellant oncount 3and£5oncount 4, weareof opinion thatin the circumstances of this case the fines areadequate and we do notpropose to"disturbCthe order of the trial judge. ·>' . The net result is that the order for the payment ofthe £27.100 mils is setaside. The fine imposed on the firstappellant on count I is increased from £5 to £30. All other fines remain the same. ZEKIA, J. : I agree with the majority of the Court as far as thedismissal of appeal against conviction is concerned and also the setting aside the order of payment of £27.100 milsfees,theorder beinginexcess ofjurisdiction. Idisagree, however, aslotheincreaseof thefineoncount Iagainst appellant I. 1am not satisfied that it is manifestly inadequate in the circumstances of thecase, in view of the fact that there is no finding on the part of the Court that the appellant 1has evaded payment of fees for the period in question, or that the vehicle constituted a danger on the road. Appeal against (onvii turn dismissed. Order (or the payment i>/"£27.IOO mils set aside. Fine imposed on \st appellantincreasedfrom t'5. to £30. All other fines to remainthesame. 235 1967 Oct. 3. I. AtiAMEMNON PAPAIOANNOU 2. bi ENl AtiAMbMNONOS V. Tut P O L I O . JiiM-'pluik'1·. I.