clr/1966/1966_2_60.pdf

(2)(a)ofthe Firearms Law, Cap. 57(as amended) and section 5 ofthe Military Criminal Code and Procedure Law, 1964 (Law No.40 of 1964)—And possessing explosive substances contrary to section 4

(4)(d) of the Explosive Substances Law, Cap. 54 and section 5of Law No. 40 of 1964(supra)—Appeal against sentence-See above under Criminal Law. Appeal against sentence. Appeal against tin sentence imposed on the appellant who was convicted mi the 20th September, 1966,atthe Military Court, sitting at Nicosia, (Case N o .296/66) on two counts of the oilVnccs of

(1)carrying a revolver contrary to section 1

(2)(a)of the Kireurms Law, Cap. 57(as amended by Law 11 of 1959) .indsection 5 of the Military Criminal Code and Procedure Law, 1964(Law40/64) and

(2)pos­ sessing explosive substances, contrary to section 4

(4)(i/)of the Kxplosive Substances Law, Cap. 54and section 5of Law 40/64 (supra) a n d wassentenced to eighteen m o n t h s ' impri­ sonment on count 1 and -one year's imprisonment on count 2, t h e sentences to run concurrently. Appellant, in person. M. Spatios, Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. VASSIUADKS, A C P . : M r . Spanos, weHndit unnecessary to call upon you regarding t h e term of imprisonment in the sentence ; but we would like to hear you on t h e order for t h e payment of costs. A sentence may include an order for the payment, of costs ; b u t this is rather unusual where t h e sentence is one of imprisonment for a term such as t h eone in tins Case. Mr. Spanos : T h e record does not show any particular reason justifying the order made in this Case. I would i.n ,y66 leave this matter entirely with the Court. I admit that such an order is rather unusual, especially in the case of a poor person. I would not press this point. J.AMHHOS T h e following judgment of the Court was delivered by : NICOLACM- ' _"' v. AG. P . : This is an appeal against a sentence of IS months' imprisonment for carrying a pistol and six rounds of ammunition. T h e ground on which the appeal is taken, is that the sentence is excessive. T h e facts of the case constitute, more or less, common ground ; and the trial Court gave in their judgment, the reasons for which they thought fit to impose the sentence in question, which, as they say in the last part of their judgment, they consider rather lenient. VASSILIADI-S, r i"'": HEH;HLIC T h e responsibility for imposing sentence after conviction, rests primarily with the trial Court. As stated in a number of similar appeals, this Court will not interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial Court, unless it isshown on appeal, that there are sufficient legal reasons for doing so. One of such reasons may be that the sentence is manifestly excessive in the circumstances in which the offence was committed ; and this is the ground upon which the present appeal is taken. But considering the material on record, we see.nothing whatever, in support of the appeal. As far as this goes against the sentences of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court for the offences on which the appellant stands convicted on his own plea the appeal must fail. T h e sentence, however, includes also an order for the payment of £2.250 mils costs of prosecution. Rightly, we think, learned counsel for the Republic did not feel inclined to support the order for costs ; and left this matter entirely to the Court. He agreed that such an order is rather unusual in such circumstances ; and we are unanimously of the opinion that to this extent, the appeal should be allowed, and the order for costs be set aside. There will, moreover, be directions for the sentence to run from the date of conviction. ' In the result, the sentence of imprisonment is arhrmed ; and is to run concurrently from the date of conviction. T h e order for the payment of costs to be discharged. Appeal a/lowed in part. Order for costs set aside. Sentence to run from date of conviction. 61