clr/1966/1966_2_36.pdf

iw· IVASSILIADIS, Λ(ί P., Josi.i'Hiins, J , Ι.υι/ου, AG J.J Oct. 4 IBHAIHM I B R A H I M T E W H K HODJIA, T e w ι iK HODJIA Appellant, v. V T H E POMCI THE POLICE, Respondents. (Criminal Appeal No. 2824) Criminal Law—Senienw—Appeal—Appeal against sentence as being excessive —Contention that undue importance was attached to previous convictions of appellant—Not justified in the circumstantes of the case—Nojustification for interfering with sentence imposed\ whichin the circumstances of the offence, was a rather lenient—Appeal dismissed—Sentence to run according to law, ιc. from the date of the dismissal of the appeal. Appeals—Appeal See above. in Criminal Cases—Appeal against sentence— Previous convictions—Whether undue importance was attached in passing sentence—See above Sentence—Not excessive —See above. Appeal against conviction and sentence. Appeal against conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant who was convicted on the 20th June, 1966, at the District Court of Kvrenia (Criminal Case N o . 879/66) on one count of the offence of stealing from a dwelling house, contrary to sections 255, 266 (b) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154, and was sentenced by Savvides, D.J., to eighteen months' imprisonment. M. Aziz, for the appellant. AT. Talarides, Counsel of the Republic, for the respond­ ents. T h e j u d g m e n t of ihe Court was delivered by : VASSILIADHS, A C . P.: T h i s appeal originated as an appeal against conviction for stealing from a dwelling house the sum of £ 6 0 in cash. .16 When formally charged of the offence, at the police station, on June 14, 1966, by a police sergeant, the appellant admitted stealing the money—part of which he had already returned to the sergeant a few days earlier—explaining that he had not taken it from a stranger's house, but from that of his daughter and son-in-law, to whom he intended returning the money at a later stage. When called upon to plead, three days later in court, the appellant pleaded not guilty. But in the course of the trial at which he conducted his own defence, the appellant applied for leave to withdraw his plea, as he had admitted the stealing. The Court granted the application, and accepted a plea of guilty to the count for stealing, discharging the appellant of the other count in the charge-sheet for housebreaking. After hearing the facts from the prosecuting officer and appellant's plea in mitigation, the Court enquired, as usual, whether appellant had any previous convictions. In answer to that enquiry, the prosecuting officer produced a list of 27 convictions, which were put to the appellant by the Judge, one after another, and were all admitted. The list was put on the record ;and is now before us as exhibit 5. In view of the seriousness of the oilence, which is punishable with imprisonment for five years, and in view of appellant's pievious convictions, the trial Judge sentenced the appellant—a man 49 years of age—to 18 months imprisonment ; and informed him of the reasons which led him to that decision. Finding himself in prison with that sentence, the appellant gave notice of appeal on the usual form, which he signed personally, stating as ground of his appeal the allegation that he was not guilty. This morning before us, the appellant had the assistance of an advocate. Mr. Aziz explained that his client intended his appeal to be one against sentence, only, and not against conviction ; and applied to the Court that the appeal be treated accordingly. There being no objection from the other side, the appeal was heard on that basis. The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment is, in the circumstances of this case, excessive, as the Judge apparently attached undue importance to the previous convictions of the appellant. 37 1966 Oct. 4· IHRAHIM TKWKIK HODJIA V. T H E POLICE l< 66 ' " ()ct 4 IBRAHIM THWHK MimjiA At the end of strenuous effort by learned counsel for the appellant to persuade this Court that thesentence isexcessive, we f° u n d ourselves unanimously of the view that there is no justification for interfering with the sentence imposed by the trial Judge. And we did not call on the respondents. V. HE POLICK ^y e a r e ^ Qf 0 pini o n that the circumstances in which the offence was committed, and the past record of the appellant, call for a severe sentence. Although we would not go as far as to say that the sentence imposed by the trial Court is manifestly inadequate, and should be increased, we certainly think that, in the circumstances, it is a rather lenient sentence ; and this appeal must be dismissed. The sentence to run from today, according to law. Appeal dismissed. Sentence to run according to law. 38