[VASSILIADES Ρ JoSbPHipis A N D HADJIANA^T\SSIOU, JJ ] 1967 Apnl 13 T H E D I S T R I C T O F F 1 C F R . NICOSIA. AS C H A I R M A N THE DISTRICT OR T H E A P P R O P R I A T E A U T H O R I T Y F O R M O R P H O L OFFICER, NICOSIA Appellant IILhN! MIC HAEL PITTORDI Respondent. (Cinmnal Ciiinina! Law — Sentence Appeal -Vo 2890) The Stieets and Buildings Regulation Law Cap 96 see ttons I 0 { l ) and 20 (Μ ί snii; a building without tin 1e i/uu id pel nut and disobexim; a demolition oidei In the Comt must aluaw But. though considerations In unen due weight ou-rnde piopei it senttna issued In assessing sememe am- repaid must be gnen la the human element enfoui'iunt t>t fine is n,an,t\'h substituted In α of hardship ih.'\ cannot be allowed to of the Ian—In in idequate- sentence of thnt th" picsent case And ι' must he months' imprisonment on ea<h ιaunt to ιtin (out to tenth Piοι ιdm e Crinunal Appeal Senti ine Xppeal onanist In the piosi tilting publu auihorin law 1960) so'it nan of Η/A ilh die On tin iiiuund thw 'hi sentent inadequate nut eased i\o 14 of Altai ne\-Genei at undei setfan Π 7 (!)(/') of the Ciimimi1 Pioe^dare law Sentence sentent e undei section 2^
(2)of the I960 (Law of the Republu Comts of lustiti imposed Sit undei Cap 15> was niamlesth Ciiinmal Law. uhoxt Stieets and liui/dm^s Dcnnditton aidei issind In the Comt Piwheximi siuh oidei contiaix to sett ion 20 (Μ of the Streets and Buddings Regulation law. Cap % Sentence -Appeal Sentence nunased on appeal See ahoxe undei Cnmiiitd I ax Ciimui'il Pioceduit Sentent ι \ppeal against sememe h\ the masetutinii publu outInn it \ on the ground that it is manifestl\ it adequate—See ahoxe \ppeal Appall axioms' sentence See abate Demolition (>nhι Issued Λι the Conn -Hiso'ieum; stub oidei conirai \ to setlion 20(>) of Cap 96. supia -Set· above 1 lie uspumlciit was pioscuitcd ιit 1962 loi (.onstruUing a building without Ihe lequircd peirmi undei C a p .96 (sttpta) she WJA L o i m a e d and oidei ed en) ihc 3Kl I X ' t r m l v r . I % 2 , ttl ν ELLM MICHAEL PITTORDI 1967 by the Court to demolish the said building within two months. April 13 The respondent failed to comply with the said demolition order : ΤΗΚ DlaTRICT and about two years later, was prosecuted again in a fresh OFFICE», case for the disobedience of the order under section 20
(5)NICOSIA of the statute, C a p . 96 {supra). v. ELENI MICHAEL .PrrroRni She was now bound over on June 24, 1964, in the sum of £50 to come up for judgment within a year, if called upon, for the offence of disobeying the demolition order made in December,
- Apparently. however, no steps for the demolition of the building were taken : and the respondent was prosecuted afresh by the public authority concerned, in !
- for disobeying the said demolition order contrarv to section 20
(5)of the statute and for using the said building without the required certificate of approval contrary to section 10
(1)of the same sta'utc {i.e. C a p . 96, supra). On her plea she was convicted and sentenced to a fine totalling £2. It is against that sentence that the prosecuting authority now appeals, with the sanction of the Attorney-General under section 137
(1){b) of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155, on the ground that the sentence imposed is manifestly inadequate. The Supreme Court in allowing the appeal : Held. {I) from a humane point of view this is a most pathetic case The respondent is a married woman of the age of 52, the wife of a husband suffering of TB : and the mother of seven children. (2* On the o'her hand, this is a case which presents a clear flouting of the law by persons apparently unable to realize the consequences of such conduct.
(3)Considerations of hardship and ihc human elemen must always be given due weight, but they cannot be allowed to override proper enforcement of the law.
(4)We fully appieciale the desire of the trial Judge reflected in the sentence which he has imposed to be kind to this woman ; but such desire should never have been allowed to interfere with his public duly lo enforce adequately the law.
(5)The scnlence of line ami cosls shall be substituted by a sentence of three months' imprisonment from today on each count, lo run concurrently. Appeal allowed. Sentence of fine substituted a.s above. No aider as to to.st.s. 132 1967 April 13 Appeal against sentence. Appeal by the prosecutor against the inadequacy of the sentence imposed on the respondent who was convicted on the 17th January, 1967, at the District Court of Nicosia (sitting at Morphou) (Criminal Case No. 3292/66) on two counts of the offence of disobeying the order of the Court for the demolition of a building erected without the required permit, and for the offence of using such a building without a certificate of final approval contrary tosections 20and 10
(1), respectively, of the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap. 96, as amended bv Laws 14/59, 67/63 and 6/64 and was sentenced by Pitsillides, I).J., to pay a fine of £1.500 mils on the first count and a fine of £0.500 mils on the second count and she was moreover ordered to pav £4.500 mils costs. E. Odysseos,for the appellant. E. Kassoulidou (Mrs.), for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered bv : VASSIUADKS, P.: This is an appeal against sentence taken by the prosecutor, a public authority, on the ground that the sentence imposed bv the trial Court is " manifestly inadequate having regard to the seriousness of the offence". The appeal is taken under section 137
(1)(
- b)of the Criminal Procedure Law (Cap. 155) with the sanction of the Attornev-CIeneral. The sentence complained of, is a fine totalling £2, imposed on two counts, with an order for the payment of £4.500 mils costs, made hv the District Judge sitting at Morphou, against the respondent, for disobeying an order of the Court for the demolition of a building erected without the required permit, contrary to the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law (Cap. 96) ; and for the use of such a building without a certificate of final approval, as required by the statute. The fines were : £1.500 mils for disobeying the demolition order ; and £0.500 mils for using the building without the required certificate. The prosecutor is the District Officer of Nicosia as Chairman of the appropriate authority, under the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law, for the area of Morphou, wherein the biiilding in question was erected without a permit. The respondent in the appeal is the person prosecuted for the offence in question, a married woman of the age of 52, the wife of a husband suffering of TB ; and the mother of seven children. From a humane point of view, this is a most 13.1 T H E DI^TKICT OFFICE», NICOSIA v. E L E M MICHAKL PITTORDI 1967 April 1.1 ΤΗΚ Disiitin OFFICFK, NICOSIA v. ΕΙ.ΕΝΊ MICHAEL PITTORDI pathetic case. On the other hand it is a case which pre sents a clear flouting of the law by persons apparently unabic to realise the consequences of such conduct. For constructing the building in question (a small house for the family's residence) without the required statutory permit, the respondent was prosecuted in the District Court of Nicosia sitting at Morphou, in 1962 (Criminal Case 1780/62) ; was convicted ; and was ordered by the Court on December 31, 1962, to demolish the unlawfully constructed building within the two months period, prescribed by the law. T h e respondent failed to comply with the demolition order ; and about two years later, was prosecuted again in a fresh ease, for disobedience of the order. She was nov\ bound over on June 24, 1964, in the sum of £ 5 0 to come up for j u d g m e n t within a year, if called upon, for the offence of disobeying the demolition order made in December, 1962, in the original prosecution. Apparently, however, no steps for the demolition of the building were taken ; and the respondent was prosecuted afresh bv the authority con cerned, in 1966. T h i s was the case where she was fined £ 2 and ordered to pay costs as above, on January 17, 1967, after conviction upon her own plea. She pleaded guilts to a count for disobeying the demolition order in November, 1966 ; and to another count, for using the building in question during the same period without the certificate of final approval, required bv the sl.itutc. Learned counsel for the prosecuting authority s u b m i t t e d , quite r i g h t l y , in our opinion, that with the order made in June, 1964, requiring the accused to come up tor sentence i f called upon ; and the sentence imposed in the proceeding under consideration, the pro\ isions of the statute in question, have not been adequately enforced. T h e fact that the b u i l d i n g is still there, with iin indication whatever on the part of the respondent, that she intends lo abandon or demolish it, is the most eloquent proof of the merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the prosecutor. Learned counsel for the respondent put forward at the hearing before us, a verv strong and able plea on the humane aspect of the case ; b u t , found no support whatever for her client's case on the statute in question, or nn\ other part ot the law. T h i s . C o u r t , in the circumstances, has no difficulty or he sitation in reaching the conclusion that the appeal must IKallowed ; and the law be adcquatclv enforced. The human I.Μ 196 element in a ca.se must alwavs be taken into consideration ' p by the Court , especially where it is as strong as in the case _ J in hand Law and justice lose all their substance if divorced -] H F D l 3 l M j ( r from the human element But the human element is preOmc-EK, sumably taken into account b\ the legislature as well, when \uo-n they make the law It is for the legislature to consider the « ELFVI MICHAEL effect of proposed legislation upon people, at the time ot its PITTORDI enactment When it becomes a law, the Courts must apph it as it comes to them Their function is to apply the law They have to do it upon human beings, it is true ; but the) must applv it with due regard to the purpose for which the law was made. Considerations of hardships, or consequences on the feelings of the persons concerned, must always be given due weight, but thev cannot be allowed to o \ e r n d e proper enforcement ot the law. We full\ appreciate the desire ot the Judge—reflected in his s e n t e n c e - to be kind to this woman ; but such desire should never ha\e been allowed to interfere with his public d u n to enforct adequateh the law Section 20 (
- s)of the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law under which the respondent was prosecuted for disobe\ing the demolition order, pro\tdes that " A n y person against whom an order has been made under sub-sectton
(2)who disobevs or tails to compU with such order shall , be guilts ot an offence and shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding £50 or to both such imprisonment and fine " T h e respondent has been disobeying such an order since 1962 She continued in disobedience even after she was prosecuted tor it m June, 1964. T h e sentence ol £1 500 mils fine imposed upon her in this case, is clearly and manifestly inadequate ; and must be set aside together with the fine of £ 0 500 mils for using the building in question without a certificate, and the order tor the pavment ot costs. T h e sentence imposed shall be substituted by a sentence of t h i t e months imprisonment from todav on each count to lun concurrently There will be no order for the pavment ot costs We ha\e no doubt that the Welfare Services will do their duty in taking care of the human side ot the case. Appeal allowed Sentence oj the trial Court substituted as abmie. No ordet jor costs. \^