1966 Dec. 9 [VARSIL!ADI ; S, AG. P., JOSI-PHIUI-S, J., ΛΝΙ> Loi/.ou, AG.J.] MICHAEL ANTONι AFXKNTI •'IROAS " M I C H A E L A N T O N I ΛΓΧΙΕΝΤΙ " I R O A S " , Appellant, THE REPUBLIC, T H E REPUBLIC Respondent. {Criminal Appeal No. 2862) Criminal Code, Cap. 154, Law—Sentence—Homicide—Criminal section 205 (as amended by section 5 of the Criminal (Amendment) sentence—Appropriate the appropriate sentence sentenci— Responsibility lies with the trial oj under which the offence was sentence— committed—Mental condition of the accused —No justification for interfering sentence—See, also, under Criminal Criminal Procedure—Sentence—Appeal on which the Court of Appeal Procedure, against will imposing Courts—Grounds on which the Court of Appeal will inter/ere with Circumstances Code l.nn\ 1962 (Law No.3 of 1962)—Appeal against with below. sentence—Grounds interfere—Responsibility of imposing theappropriate sentence lies with the (rial Courts— The Court of Appeal will only interfere with a sentence so imposed, if it is made to appear that the trial Court misdirected itself either on the facts or the Jaw—Or that it allowed itself to be influenced by matter which should not have affected the sentence—Or thai the sentence is manifestly circumstances of the particular excessive in the case. This isan appeal againsta sentenceof twelve years'imprison ment imposed on the appellant hy the Assise Court of Nicosia for homicide conliaiy lo section 205of the Criminal Code. C a p . 154 (as amended hy Law No. 3 of 1962, supra). The ground upon which the appeal is made is that the sentence is excessive. Ίhe chargeaspreferred under the said section205 carries a sentence of imprisonment for life. It was argued, inter alia, by counsel on behalf of the appellant that his (appellant's) violent conduct was the result of mental strain arising from epilepsy, of which the appellant was suffering for years. The Supreme C o u r t in dismissing the appeal :Held, ( I ) this Court has had occasion to state more than once in earlier cases that the responsibility of imposingthe appropriate sentence lies with the trial Courts. 116
(2)The Court of Appeal will only interfere with a sentence so imposed, if it is made to appear from the record that the trial Court misdiieetcd itself either on the facts or the law ; or that the Court in considering sentence, allowed itself to be influenced by matter which should not affect the sentence ; or,ifitismadetoappear that thesentenceimposedismanifestly excessive in the circumstances of the particular case.
(3)After hearing counsel for the appellant, both regarding the circumstances under which the offence was committed, and regarding the mental condition of the appellant, upon which counsel mainly relied in addressing this Court, we are unanimously of the opinion that there is no justification for interfering with the sentence imposed. Appealdismissed. Sentence will run, according to law, from today. Appeal against sentence. Appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant who was convicted on the 3rd November, 1966, at the Assize Court of Nicosia (Criminal Ciisc No. 15670/66) onone count ofthe offence of homicide contrary tosection 205 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154 (as amended by section 5 of Law 3 of 1962) and was sentenced by Loizou, P.D.C., Ioannides and Mavrommatis, D.JJ., to twelve years' imprisonment. L. Papaphilippou, for the appellant. A. Frangos,Counsel of the Republic, lor the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered by : VASSILIADES, AG.·P.: This isan appeal againstasentence of twelve years' imprisonment imposed on the appellant by the Assize Court of Nicosia on November 3, 1966, for homicide. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge ; and the trial Court as usual, heard counsel for the prosecution on the facts, and counsel for the appellant in mitigation, before passing the sentence in question. The ground upon which the appeal is made is that the sentence is excessive. The charge (preferred under section 205 of the Criminal Code as amended by section 5 of Law 3 of 1962) carries a sentence of imprisonment for life. 117 1966 Dec. 9 MICHAEL . ANTONI AFXENTI " IBOAS " v. T H E REPUBLIC Pf6f. !)«.-.*t MieiiAKi. Λ Ν Ί Ό Νι Al-XliNTt " IHOAS " V. Tin·: R K M ' I I . U : T h e facts, as stated in the judgment o| the trial Court, are that t h e appellant on the Sth of June, 1966, while working as a casual labourer in road-building, was reprimanded bv llie lorcman on the spot regarding the manner in which he was doing his work. I le was reprimanded in an " abrupt manner " , the trial Court sav in their judgment. Apparrentlv the appellant took offence at his. foreman's observations ;and when the latter returned shortly afterwards, to the spot where the appellant was working, the appellant suddenly attacked the foreman with a spade. It was a sudden and unprovoked attack, with a heavv and dangerous tool, with which the appellant delivered two violent blows on his victim, both directed against the tatter's head. T h e first struck the foreman on the shoulder, and the second right on the head, causing him lata! injuries. T h e defence put forward on behalf of the appellant at the trial, was that his violent conduct was the result of mental strain arising from cpilipsy, of which the appellant had been suffering for years. Λ medical report from a Government mental specialist was produced in support of this defence. It is exhibit 5 on the' record ; and it confirms that the appellant is an epileptic. But it concludes with the statement that his condition is not such as to affect materially his mental faculties. And the doctor who signed this report, it gives it as his opinion that at the time of the commission of the offence, the appellant knew the nature, and the probable consequences of his acts. T h e trial Court, taking all circumstances into conside ration, (including the age of the appellant who is'fifty-six years old), imposed a sentence of twelve years imprisonment. T h i s Court has had occasion to state more than once iu earlier eases, that the responsibility of imposing the appropriate sentence in a case, lies with the trial Court. T h e Court of Appeal will only interfere with a sentence so imposed, if it is made to appear from the record that the trial Court misdirected itself either on the facts or the law ; or, that the Court, in considering sentence, allowed itself to be influenced by matter which should not affect t h e sentence ; or, if it is made to appear that the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the particular case. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, both regarding the circumstances under which the offence was committed, and regarding the mental condition of the IIS appellant, upon which counsel mainly relied in addressing this Court today, we are unanimously of the opinion that there is no justification for interfering with the sentence imposed ; and we did not find it necessary to call upon counsel for the prosecution to support the sentence. The taking of human life is, for obvious reasons, a matter of very serious concern ; and the courts have always taken a serious view of crimes resulting in the loss of life, especially in circumstances of violent attacks such as the one under consideration. This appeal must be dismissed ; anil the sentence will run, according to law, from today, which sufficiently reflects our mind in the matter. Appeal dismissed. Sentence to run accordingto law. 119 1966 Dec. 9 MICHAEL ANTONI AFXENTI "IROAS " V. T H E REPUBLIC