clr/1962/1962_1_295.pdf

(2)of the Firearms Law, Cap. 57, as amended by Law I If59—The substance of the offence lies In the nature and not In the description of the weapon—Therefore a conviction of carrying a pistol on evidence upon which It can be sold that accused was carrying either a pistol or a revolver. Is goodIn law—Revolver Is a kind of pistol. Appeal—findings of fact of trial Courts—The High Court will be slow to upset such findings unless It can be shown on the record that they could not be made on theevidence. The accused was convicted by t h e Assize C o u r t Nicosia f o r carrying a pistol contrary t o section 4(I)

(2)of the Firearms Law, Cap. 57 as amended by Law 11 of 1959. O n appeal ft was argued that section 4

(2)of the Firearms Law, was intended t o provide and in effect creates t w o distinct offences /e.,the offenceo f possessing a revolver and t h e offence o f possessing a pistol, and since some witnesses said that the accused was carrying a pistol and others that he was carrying a revolver, therefore t h e accused was e n t i t l e d t o be a q u l t t e d of the charge of possessing a pistol Alternatively it was argued that the evidence before the t r i a l C o u r t was not such as t o entitle the C o u r t t o find t h e accused g u i l t y o f e i t h e r possessing a pistol o r a revolver The Appeal C o u r t w i l l not upset the findings o f the trial C o u r t unless it can be shown f r o m the record t h a t such findings could not be made on the evidence

(2)O n the evidence it was open t o t h e trial C o u r t t o make the findings of facts upon which the appellant was convicted

(3)VASSOS LAMBROU Ψ. THI RFPUBLIC r. Held · ( I ) 1962 Nov. 22 The Appeal C o u r t is not called upon t o deal w i t h the distinction between a revolver and a pistol but has t o decide 295 1962 Nov. 22 VASSOS LAMBROU v. T H E RI.PUIILIC only whether the accused was in possession or had under his control the prohibited weapon.

(4)The legislature by usingthe words "uses or carries any revolver or pistol of any kind", indicated the evil which the legislature wanted to guard against such lethal weapons without special permit. .

(5)The substance of the offence lies in the nature and not in the description of the weapon, and a revolver is a kind of pistol. Appeal dismissed sentence to run from the date ofcon­ viction. Appeal against conviction. The appellant was convicted on the 9.10.62 at the Assize Court of Nicosia (Criminal Case No. 15853/62) on one count of the offence of carrying a pistol contrary to s. 4(I)

(2)of the Firearms Law, Cap. 57 as amended by s. 3(

1. a)(
2. b)of Law Π of 1959 and was sentenced by Stavrinides, P.D.C., and Georghiou and Demetriadcs, D.J.J, to 3 years' imprisonment. Lefkos N. derides for the appellant. S. A. Georghiadesfor the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered by :— VASSILIADRS, J. : This is an appeal against a conviction by the Assize Court of Nicosia for carrying a pistol contrary to section 4

(2)of the Firearms Law; Cap. 57, as amended by Law 11 of 1959. The appeal is made on the grounds set out in the supple­ ment attached to the Notice of Appeal prepared by counsel. But, for the purposes of deciding the appeal, wc find it unne­ cessary to deal with all the grounds given in the Notice. Learned counsel for the appellant argued his client's case mainly on two grounds : The first ground is that the section of the Law under which the appellant was convicted, i.e. section 4

(2)of the Firearms Law, is intended to provide for.and in effect creates two distinct offences : The offence of possessing a revolver, 296 and the offence o f possessing a pistol. A n d , as in this case, counsel submitted, the evidence is such that on the question whether the accused was holding a revolver or a pistol, there cannot be the certainty r c q u i r e d i n a criminal case to support J c o m i r t i o n , inasmuch as sonic o f the witnesses stated that ι he article which the accused was holding was a revolver, while other witnesses slated it was a pistol, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted o f the charge o f possessing a pistol. upon which he was convicted. The second ground o f appeal is that the evidence before the trial court was such that it was not open to the Court to find ihe accused guilty o f cither possessing a pistol or a revol­ ver. Dealing with the second ground first, we may say again, what has been said on many previous occasions, that this Court will not upset the findings o f the trial court, unless it· can be shown on the record, that such findings could not be made on the evidence. In this case, we lake unanimously ι he view that, on the evidence before ihem, it was open lo ihe lrial court to make the findings o f facts upon which ihey con­ victed the appellant. This disposes o f the second ground which rests on the facts. " G o i n g now to the first ground : learned counsel f o r (he appellant based his arguments in this connection, upon the distinction in the description o f the weapons commonly known as revolvers or pistols. We lake the view that in these cases the Court is not called upon lo deal with that dis­ tinction. What the Court has to decide is whether the accused was in possession or had under his control the prohibited weapon. The material words o f the section arc : " 4

(2)Any person who — (a) Uses or carries any revolver or pistol o f any kind shall be guilty o f an offence '*. I lay stress on the words "uses or carries any l e v o k e r or pistol o f any k i n d " , which, in our opinion. cleaiK indicaie ihe c\tl which the legislature wanted to provide for in this scition when they made it an offence for any person to handle, use HI carry such lethal weapons, without special permit. Ihe substance o f the offence ties, we think, in the nature and not in the description of the weapon. We accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the Republic, based upon the 297 1962 Nov. 22 VASSOS LAMBROU V. Tin·. REPUIU K· Vassiiiades, J. 1962 Nov. 22 VASSOS LAMBROU I'. I H L REPUHI If view taken by the Assize Court, that, in the context of section 4

(2)a revolver is a kind of pistol ; and we are of opinion that, in the circumstances of this case, it isimmaterial whether the article in appellant's hand was a revolver o r any other kind of pistol. Vassiiiades. J. Weare unanimously of the opinion that this appeal must fail. MR. CLERIDES : May I ask that the sentence should start to run from the date of conviction. COURT : The Court has considered this point and, as the grounds of appeal were prepared bycounsel who believed that there was an arguable point, we think that, in the circumstances of this case, the sentence should run from the date it was imposed by the Assize Court ; and we direct accordingly. Appeal dismissed. Sentence torunfrom dateofconviction. 298