1962 Nov. 1, 13 T u t ATTORNI.Y GENERAL V. lilURUMIOS [ W I L S O N , P.. Z E K I A . VASSILIADFS and Josi-miDfcs, J J . | T H E A T T O R N E Y - G E N E R A L O KT H E R E P U B L I C . Appellant, v. SlAVROU & onil-R.S 1. G E O R G H I O S S T A V R O U , 2. IACOVOS D E M O S T H E N O U S , 3. MICHAEL KYRIACOU, Respondents. (CriminalAppealNo. 2561}. Criminal Law—Sentence—Princlpies upon which sentence shouldbe assessed—Young offenders—Desirability of social investigation reports bytheProbation Officer before passing sentence In certain cases. Sentence—Costs—Order of payment of costsis unusual in sentencesof imprisonment. Sentence—Shopbreaking contrary to section 294(
- a)of the Criminal Code, Cap. IS4—Appeal by the Attorney—General—Sentence increased— The respondents were Jointly charged for shopbreakingand stealing ametal safecontaining money and other articles valued at £60, contrary to section 294(
- a)ofthe Criminal Code. They all pleaded guilty andthe trial Court sentenced respondent No.I to £30 fine and in addition bound himover in £50forone year to keep thepeace andtheremaining tworespondents were bound over in thesumof £100 each with a surety to come upforjudgment within one year ifcalled upon. Moreover, each of the three accused wasordered topay £10 compensation to thecomplainant ; and£2.500 mils costs towards thecosts ofprosecution. Against these sentences the Attorney-General appealed, on the ground that they were, in.the circumstances, manifestly insufficient, considering thegravity oftheoffence. The High Court after considering each respondent's social investigation report, differentiated between them, set aside 274 t h e sentences substituting t h e r e f o r heavier ones; artd) set aside t h e o r d e r f o r t h e payment of costs. Held ;.( I ) T H E ATTORN» V GENERAL A l t h o u g h t h e charges arise o u t o f t h e same set of facts, yet w e would^dlfferentlate between t h e respondents in view of the previous convictions of respondent N o . I.
(2)Respondent N o . I w i l l be sentenced t o t w o years' imprisonment, t h esentence t o r u nf r o m t h e date oft h e hearing of t h e appeal.
(3)Respondent N o . 2 t o be on probation under t h e supervi sion of t h e appropriate Probation Officer, f o r t h r e e years, under a probation o r d e r on t h e usual terms, controlled by the District C o u r t .
(4)Respondent N o . 3 t o be on probation under t h e supervi sion of the appropriate Probation Officer, for t h r e e years under a probation o r d e r c o n t r o l l e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t containing t h e condition that during t h e period of proba t i o n , t h e probationer w i l l pursue a course of studies (night classes, if w o r k i n g during t h e day) as the Probation Officer may plan for him now, o r arrange f r o m t i m e t o time.
(5)The order for t h e payment of costs is unusual in sentences of imprisonment ; and is set aside.
(6)The Orders for t h e payment of compensation, t o stand as made in t h e District C o u r t . Per curiam : If t h e accused are persons of young age, the trial C o u r t should, before passing sentence, direct that a Social Investigation r e p o r t by the Probation Officer be pre pared. Sentences set aside and substituted. Cases referred t o : . Sty/ίαηου and others v. The Repubiic 1961C.L.R. 265 ; Kioftes v. The Republic ( C r i m . Appeal 2413) unreported, decided on 14 11.61. Charalambo·. Tryfona Aloupos v. The Republic 1961 C.L.R. 246; Sty///s Tofi v. The Republic ( C r i m . Appeal 2491, unreported decided on 8.6.62) ; Djemal Mehmedand others v. The Police ( C r i m . Appeal 2474- . 2477 unreported, decided on 5.4.62). 275 1962 Nov. !, 13 v. GEOROHIOS STAVROU & OTHFRS 1962 Nov. 1, 13 THh ATTORNfcY GF-.NFRAI. V. tiKHti.HIOS SlAVROU & OTHIKS Appeal against sentence by the Attorney-General of the Republic. The respondents were convicted on the 25.9.62 at the District*Court-of Nicosia (Cr. Case No. 13905/62) on one count of the offence of shopbreaking contrary to ss.294(
- a)and 20of the Criminal Code, Law Cap. 154and weresentenced by Pieridcs, D.J. to the following sentences : First respondent to pay a fine of £30.— and in addition to be bound over in £50.— for one year to keep the peace. The other two respondents were bound over in the sum of £100.— each, with a surety to come up for judgment within one year, if called upon, moreover, each of the three respondents was ordered to pay £10.— compensation to the complainant, and £2.500 mils towards the costs of prosecution. V. Aziz for the appellant. A. Hji Constantinou (on behalf of Mr. Lefcos N. Clerides) for respondent No. 2. Respondents 1and 3 appearing in person. Thejudgment of the Court was delivered by :— VASSIUADES, J. : This is an appeal by the AttorneyGeneral against the sentence imposed on the respondents by the District Court of Nicosia, for shopbreaking and stealing. The charge is for the crime in sect. 294(
- a)of the Criminal Code, which ispunishable with imprisonment for seven years. The respondents were jointly charged for committing the crime together ; and stealing from the shop in question a metal safe, containing money and other articles valued at £60.— Thcv all pleaded guilty ; whereupon the trial-court passed sentence,after hearing the prosecuting officer, as usual, and the accused, or advocates on their behalf, in mitigation. The lirsl respondent in the dock was sentenced to £30.— fine ; and, in addition, to be bound over in £50.— for one year to keep the peace. The other two respondents were bound over in the .sum of £100.— each, with a surety to come up forjudgment within one year, ifcalled upon. Moreover, each of the three-accused was ordered to pay £10.compensation to the complainant ; and £2.500 mils towards the costs of prosecution. 276 Against these sentences, the Attorney-Genera! appealed, on the ground that they are, in the circumstances, manifestly insufficient, considering the gravity of the offence. The learned trial judge did not place on record his reasons for these sentences. One such reason, may be the age of the respondents. According to the charge-sheet the first respondent is 23 ; the second 21 ; and the third 20 years of age. But if the young age,of the accused was the learned Judge's reason for such light sentences, it was also a strong reason for directing a Social Invetigation report by the Proba tion Officer, for each accused, before passing sentence, as indicated on more than one occasion, by this Court. It is .sufficient to refer to StylUmou and others v. The Republic 1961 C.L.R. 265, where it was said : " in cases where the persons convicted are of young age, and a sentence of imprisonment is contem plated, the services of a Probation Officer shall be made available to the Court". And in Kiofte"s v. The Republic (Crim. App. 2413) the view was expressed that such reports are very useful where the offenders are young persons, and this Court felt confident that all Courts would avail themselves of such reports, in appropriate cases. It is to be regretted that since then, more than once this Court had to adjourn the hearing of. an appeal against sen tence, as we had to do in this case, in order to have such reports prepared and filed. Coming now back to this case, we have considered the matter in hand, in the light of the information contained in the report concerning each individual respondent, and of what each of them had to .say in this connection. We are unanimously of the opinion that the appeal was justified, and ii must succeed. This Comt had occasion to deal with the considerations hearing upon .sentence in C'luualanibos Tryjbnu Ahmpos v. The Republic( d i m . App. 2412,decided on3.11.61) ; in Styllis Tofi \. 'The Republic (Crim. App. 2491, decided on 8.6.62) ; and in numerous-other appeals to which Ineed notnow refer. Upon these considerations, we think that the sentences imposed in 277 Γ9«2 N o * 1, 13 TftH ATTORNEY GENERAL V. GEORGHIOS STAVROU & OTHFR* Vassiliaili«. ' 1962 Nov. I, 13 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. GEORGHIOS STAVROU & OTHERS Vussiliades, J. the District Court must be set aside ; and be substituted by the sentence and orders which follow. Moreover, we are unanimously of the opinion that, owing to the antecedents and other relevant matters bearing on the question of sentence, we must differentiate between the first respondent and the other two, although they have all committed one and the same crime under similar circumstances. (Dje/nal Mehmed and others v. The Police - Crim. Appeals 2474-2477 consolidated). We are not taking into account his first two convictions in 1955 and 1956 ; but we cannot overlookhis three lastconvictions,all in 1960,suggesting a rather unruly and indisciplined character. We venture to hope that the sentence he is about to receive, will give him the opportunity to reconsider his attitude towards the community, and reform his ways. He must realise that his future lies entirely in his hands. The result of the appeal is that the sentences imposed are substituted as follows :— Respondent No. 1. Georghios Stavrou : Two years imprisonment from today.Respondent No. 2. lacovos Demosthenous : To be on probation under the supervision of the appropriate Probation Officer, for three years, under a probation order on the usual terms, controlled by the District Court. Respondent No. 3. Michael Kyriacou : To be on probation under the supervision of the appropriate Probation Officer, for three years under a probation order controlled by the District Court, containing the condition that during the period of probation, the probationer will pursue a course of studies (night classes, if working during the day) as the Probation Officer may plan for him now, or arrange from time to time. The Order for thepayment ofcosts isunusual in sentences of imprisonment ; and is set aside. 278 The Orders for the paymeet of compensation, to stand as made in the District Court. Sentence set aside and .. ..^ — THE ATTORNBY GENERAL r. & OTHERS Vassiliades. J. 279