1967 M u 24 [VASSIUADES, P., STAVRIMDES, HADJIANASTASSIOU, JJ ] N , c o s N1COS A N T O M O U V O U D A S K A S , Appellant, ANTONIOU , VOUDASKAS THE REPUBLIC, THF R H HI Κ V ( Ο nnmal Criminal Law Sentence—Trespass with Appeal Λο intent to in imposing sentence—The Court must take info die sniousness to tin piotedion It must, also, give due regard »nt(h the ·>αιααΙ publn are entitled to, against lite dangeis /torn person* mentalh afflicted—And ι('member tin η when about sentcihi' The mental condition of the named mental into ionsideiation ajjhction Cimunal Pimediae to also jot putposes of institutional \ppeal -Sentence—Appioach Appeal to the question of saiteme testate I Mn'ta1 taken into ααοι,ηΐ tmitotan ηho on/x lecene must Ή taken while such pet sons shall he w Μ///*,' a sememe of nicnt applicable consideration of the offeiue as reflected by the punishment pi o\ nled In tin Icztshituie- I'limipUs annox—The 154, section 280—Pimaples Criminal Code. Cap treafnent imprisonment of the Couit of imposed hi trial Couits — condition of the unused—Must inter a h a . lot ρ rposes of whiU sinh pa SOILSare wn///si a sentence of imptison- Repaid hetita hid to the fait that pa sons will Ιιακ an excellent oppoituntt\ whih \./ < '//t; 'hen sentences of impnsonnunt- also, inula Cimunal Appeal See. Appeal against sentena — of the Couit of ippial to the question of uncle ι ( ιuniiial Iuw apptopuatc law. aboM Pion iplvs tpplu abk imposed b\ tiiul Cowl Appeal lot tin mentalh tuatment Appioaih bi institutional aff/utaf Sain ini 2881) sememes Pimaples ivstated -See, also, abme C ιimmiil Proceduie ippaif against saitcinc See aboie This is .in appeal bv one ot the two accused convicted in ιhis ς,isc bv the Asst/e Com ι o\"I imassol for trespass with ntenl lo annoy ment each am! sentenced to eighteen months* imprison ! he appeal is against sentence on the ground thai the sentence tinposed is manifestly excessive. Counsel U<i the appellant iched mostly on the mental condition and 109 '967 Nicos other personal circumstances pertaining to the appellant, rather than the circumstances under which the offence has been committed. ANTONIOU VOUDASKAS Vm The Court in dismissing the appeal, and directing that the sentence should run as from such dismissal : · T H E Ρ.ΚΠ BI.IC Held, (I) the approach of the Court of Appeal to the question of sentence in an appeal of this nature, was stated in a number of cases ;and recently in the case of the AttorneyGeneral v. Vasdiot'is and Another (reported in this part at p. 20 ante). Quoting from a judgment in a previous appeal Afxenti alius "/rw/.v" v. The Republic
(1966)2 C.L.R. 116 at p. 118, the Court said : " The Court of Appeal will only interfere with a sentence so imposed (by the trial Court) if it is made to appear from the record that the trial Court misdirected itself cither 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 if it is made to appear that the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the particular case."
(2)But in the present case the matter is so clear that w: consider it unnecessary to say anything more about it in this connection. One can hardly find any mitigating circumstances in the facts of the crime committed.
(3)Where the mental condition of the accused, (which was taken into consideration by the trial Court), cannot be put forward by way of defence under the law, but is only relied upon in mitigation, the interest of a convicted person, in most cases, is better served by the prisons medical services, available to persons serving a sentence of imprisonment, than if the mentally afflicted person remains ;it large.
(4)The Court in imposing sentence, must take into consideration the seriousness of the offence in each case. as reflected by the punishment provided by the legislature ; and must give due regard to the protection which the general public are entitled to, under the law, against the dangers from persons who only remember their mental affliction when about to receive sentence for an offence : and never take any step earlier, to cure themselves from a mental stale which makes them dangerous to their environment. 11U
(5)The mental condition of an accused person about to be sentenced, should be taken into account by the court, not only for purposes of belatedly intended treatment while the accused remains at large, but also for purpose» of institu tional treatment, while such persons are serving a sentence of imprisonment. This makes them more readily subject to the appropriate treatment, either in the prison hospital, or in the mental hospital, the services of which are always available for the benefit of persons confined in prisons under a sentence.
(6)We find no merit whatsoever in this appeal which must, therefore, be dismissed. The sentence to run according to law from today. Appeal dismissed. Sentence to run from today. Cases referred lo : The Attorney-General v. Neophytos Vasiliotts and Another. reported in this Part. ante, at p. 20 followed: \t Afxentt alias " irons" v. 'the Republic,
(1966)2 C.L.R. 116 at p.
- Appeal against sentence. Appeal against sentence imposed on the appellant who was cunvictctl on the 30th· January, 1967, at the Assize Court of Limassol (Criminal Case, No. 211/67) on one count of the offence of trespass with intent .to intimidate or annov con trary to section 280 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154, and was sentenced b\ Malachtos, P.D.C., Loris and Pikis. O.J.J., to eighteen months' imprisonment. L. I'apuphiHppoit, for the appellant. .
- Francos, Counsel of the Republic, for' the respon dents. T h e judgment of the Court was delivered bv : VASSILIADKS, I'.: T h i s is an appeal by one of the two accused convicted in this case, bv the Assize Court of Limassol for trespass % with intent to a n n o y ; and sentenced to cigiitccn months' imprisonment, each. It is an appeal against sentence, taken b v ' t h e appellant in person from the Central Prisons on the ground that the sentence is mani festly excessive... . . . .,: . -It in' 1967 M,ir. 2Λ Nicos ANTONIOU VOCDASKAS t». Tm ΓΓΗΙ BLIC 1967 Ma.. 24 Nicos ANTONIOU VOCDASKAS v. T H E Kti r b u e At the hearing before this Court, the appellant was represented by counsel, who relied mostlv on the mental condition and other personal circumstances pertaining to the appellant, rather than the circumstances under which the offence was committed. These, indeed, afford very meagre grounds for argument against a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment for the crime committed. The facts of the case are, shortly, that two young men of about twenty-five years of age, one of them a married man, and the other engaged to be married, after spending their evening in different places of entertainment, broke into a dwelling house where they knew that a young girl was likely to be alone ; finding her asleep in her bedroom, the two trespassers carried the purpose of their midnight visit further, one of them by trying to keep the mouth of the sleeping girl closed with the palm of his hand, and the other by pressing her shoulders on the bed. The girl's screams for help in the fright which such unexpected attack must have caused her, made the assailants run away. They were both arrested, a few days later ; and one of them ga\e the whole story away, thus enabling the police to secure all the evidence required. They were both prosecuted ; and, eventually, committed to trial on charges tor burylary, assault and criminal trespass. In the Assize Court the two voting men were defended by separate counsel, on whose advice, apparently, both accused pleaded not guilty to the counts for burglary, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm ; and guilty to the count for criminal trespass with intent to intimidate and annoy, preferred under section 280 of the Criminal Code. Counsel for the Republic accepted this plea, and offered no evidence on the more serious counts, taking in this way the most favourable course for the accused. Convicted on their own plea, the accused, through their advocates, pleaded for leniency, putting forward in mitigation, personal reasons rather than circumstances connected with the offence. The appellant pleaded, moreover, his poor mental state on account of which he was considered as unfit for military service. This is the main ground upon which, this morning before us, counsel on his behalf, argued appellant's case against the sentence imposed by the trial Court. The matter at this stage, presents no difficulty. The approach of the Court of Appeal to the question of sentence 112 in an appeal of this nature, was stated in a number of cases ; and recently in criminal appeal No. 2870 of the AttorneyGeneral v. Neophytos Nicola Vanliotis and another, (reported in this part at p. 20 ante). Quoting from ajudgment in a previous appeal {Michael Ajxenti alias " Iroas " v. The Republic,
(1966)2 C.L.R. 116 at p. 118 the Court said : " The Court of Appeal will only interfere with a sentence so imposed (by the trial Court) 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 the sentence ; or if it is,made to appear that the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the particular case." In the case before us, it is apparent, on the face of the record, that the appellant and his companion were very generously treated by the prosecution accepting their plea of guilty to the lightest count on the information, the punishment for which is imprisonment for two years. Quite rightly, in our opinion, the trial Court in imposing sentence on this count, took into consideration the circumstances under which the offence was committed ; and these make it obviously, a serious case. The matter is so clear that we consider it unnecessary to say anything more about it in this connection. One can hardly find any mitigating circumstances in the facts of the crime committed by the two young men in question, one of whom is the appellant before us. The trial Court did take into consideration the personal circumstances of the appellant, including his mental condition, as described in the medical reports before the Court. The record shows that attention was drawn to these, bv learned counsel, for the purposes of sentence. Where the mental condition of the accused cannot be put forward by wav of defence under the law, but is only relied upon in mitigation, the interest of a convicted person, in most cases, is better served bv the prisons medical services, available to persons serving a sentence of imprisonment, than if the mentally afflicted person remains at large. The Court in imposing sentence, must take into consideration the seriousness of the offence in each case, as reflected by the punishment provided by the legislature in 113 1967 Mar. 24 Nicos ANTONIOU VOUDASKAS V. THE REPUBLIC 1967 • J^_" 4 Nicos ANTONIOU VOUDASKAS v · ΉΒ REPUBLIC the relative section of the Criminal Code ; and must give due regard to the protection which the general public are entitled to, under the law, against the dangers from persons who only remember their mental affliction when about to receive sentence for an offence ; and never take anv step earlier, to cure themselves from a mental state which makes dangerous to their environment. Their mental r n e r n state is, usually, the cause of trouble to others, long before the commission of the offence for which they are about to receive sentence. We take the view that the mental condition of an accused person about to be sentenced according to law, should be taken into account by the Court, not only for purposes of belatedly intended treatment while the accused remains at large (as often suggested by counsel on their behalf) but also for purposes of institutional treatment, while such per sons are serving a sentence of imprisonment. T h i s makes them more readily subject to the appropriate treatment, either in the prison hospital, or in the mental hospital, the services of which are always available for the benefit of persons confined in prison under a sentence. In the circumstances of this case, we have no doubt that the appellant, whose counsel has properly and frankly ad mitted that his client has never before taken any treatment for his poor mental state, shall have an excellent opportu nity for treatment while serving his sentence ; and for this purpose the term, perhaps, may be hardly long enough. But this is a medical matter into which we do not enter. We find no merit whatsoever, in this appeal which must, therefore, be dismissed. T h e sentence to run according to law from today. Appeal dismissed. Sen tence to run from today. Ill*