clr/1966/1966_2_58.pdf

(4)(d) of the Explosive Substances Law, Cup. 54—Appeal against sentence as being excessive—Irrelevant and prejudicial material against the accused{appellant) introducedby theprosecution inthe statement of facts bejore the trial Court—This might have influenced the mind of the trial judge in imposing sentence—Sentence reduced as manifestly excessive. Trial in Criminal Cases -Irrelevant andprejudicial material against an accused person introducedby theprosecution inthe statement of facts before the trial Court—See above. Appeal against sentence. Appeal against the sentence imposed on t h e appellant w h o was convictedonthe19th August, 1966 at t h e District Court of Limassol (Criminal Case N o . 8142/66) o none count of t h e offence of possessing explosive substances, contrary t o section 4

(4)(d) of t h e Explosive substances Law, C a p .54, a n d was sentenced by I,oris, D.J., t o nine m o n t h s ' imprisonment. Appellant, in person. A. Franco*, Counsel ofthe Republic, forthe respondents. T h e j u d g m e n t of ihc Court was delivered by : JOSEPHIDES, J . : T h e appellant in this case pleaded guilty t o a charge of possessing explosive substances contrary t o section 4

(4)(d) of t h e Explosive Substances Law, C a p .54. T h e explosive substance in question was 57 drams of ordinary gunpowder which, it is understood, is used by sportsmen, a piece of safety fuse and a detonator. 5S T h e prosecuting officer, in stating the facts to the trial Judge, stated that the accused, who is a fisherman, had been called to the Limassol police station for interrogation in connection with " a case of indecent assault on male " and then he went on to state that when the appellant was searched the above articles were found in his possession. Pausing there, we think that the fact that the appellant had been called to the police station in connection with a case of indecent assault on male was both irrelevant and highly prejudicial to the appellant in the present case, and this should not have been included in the statement of facts by the prosecuting officer. m,( ' ^"_ p„|Vos l }>*NTM.I ALIAS ,, T l ) F PoLICE T h e explanation given by the appellant in mitigation of sentence was that dolphins destroy his nets and that he had to carry gunpowder in order to cause small explosions in the sea to frighten the dolphins away. T h e appellant who is 38 years of age had a similar previous conviction in 1954 for which he was bound over for one year. He also had four other convictions for gambling, disturbance etc. for which he was fined or bound over. T h e learned trial Judge, in passing sentence, observed to the accused that he was of bad character and that one of his previous convictions was similar to the present offence, and he went on to pass a sentence of nine months imprisonment. Considering that the appellant's similar previous conviction is some twelve years ago and that his last conviction for drunkenness was more than three years ago, we are of the view that the sentence of nine months imprisonment was manifestly excessive in the circumstances of this case. We also take into account that irrelevant and prejudicial material against the appellant was put by the prosecution before the trial Court which may have influenced the mind of the Judge in imposing sentence. For all these reasons, we allow the appeal and reduce the sentence of nine months' imprisonment to one of three months' imprisonment. T h e sentence to run from the date of conviction. Appeal 59 !' v " i " 1 I h allowed.