clr/1967/1967_2_190.pdf

(3)of the Courts of I960 (Law of the Republic No. 14 of 1960), for to Justice sentence by another Judge, after hearing matter from both sides relevant to sentence. Criminal Procedure—Appeal—Sentence—Appeal the Attorney-General—Case for sentence—Sentence considering Road Traffic against sentence by back to the trial wrong in principle—Manifestly the frequency above under Criminal referred of fatal Court inadequate road accidents—See, also, Law. -1'uial accidents conirary to section 210 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154—See above. Fatal accidents—See above. T h i s is an appeal by the Attorney-General against a sentence of" line in the sum o f £ 4 5 . - imposed on the respondent in the D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f Nicosia, for causing death by want of precaution in a road accident c o n t r a r y to section 210 o f the C r i m i n a l Code. Cup. 154, the g r o u n d o f the appeal being t h a t such sentence was manifestly inadequate considering the frequency of fatal road accidents. T h e respondent pleaded guilty to the charge and after an o p e n i n g o f the facts by the prosecution, as usual, and after hearing counsel in m i t i g a t i o n , the Judge passed sentence on respondent, w h i c h he recorded in the f o l l o w i n g short note : " Accused to pay £45 line. In view ο Γ ί h ^ fact t h a i accused is u lirst offender. I order no imprisonment or disqualification ". 190 On appeal counsel for the Republic stressed the Irequencv of fatal road accidents In allowing the appeal the Supreme Court Held.

(1)leading the decision of the trial Judge {supra) is sufficient to lead us to the conclusion that he acted on wrong principle in measuring the bentence imposed

(2)As ve do not have sufficient material on which to impose the proper sentence we find ourselves compelled to have recourse to the wide powers with which this Court was vested by section 25

(3)of the Courts of Justice Law. 1960 {supra) and we make an order referring the case back to the District Court, to be dealt with for the purposes of sentence by another Judge Prosecution and defence will then have the oppoi(unity of placing before the Court of first instance all relevant matter The seriousness of the offence, reflected, ,nter alia, in the punishment provided by the legislator, lequires that the lelevant matter must be adequately put before the Court for the puiposes of sentence Appeal allowed Sentent e se> aside Case referred bail-- to the trial Court fat senteme b\ another Judge Case-. lefened to Nico/aos Nearchou ν The Polue

(1965)2 C L R 34 Appeal against sentence. Appeal by the Attorney-General of the Republic against the inadequacy of the sentence imposed on the respondent who was convicted on the 2nd Mav, 1967, at the District Court of Nicosia (sitting at Morphou) (Criminal Case No. 1760/67) on one count of the offence of causing death by want of precaution contraiy to section 210 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154 and was sentenced by Pitsillides, D . J . to pay a fine of £ 4 5 . A. Francos, Counsel of the Republic, for the appellant. Respondent, in person. T h e judgment of the Court was delivered by : VASSILIADES, P . : T h i s is an appeal by the AttorneyGeneral of the Republic against a sentence of £45 fine, 191 1967 June 9 ATTORNF\GENERAL O F THE REPUBLIC TJ. YlANNIS PANAYIOTOU MAVBOMMATIS 1967 June 9 ATTORNEYGENERAL OF THE imposed on the respondent in the District Court of Nicosia, for causing death by want of precaution contrary to section 210 of the Criminal Code (Cap. 154). T h e appeal is taken on the ground that " the sentence is insufficient in view of the. seriouness, gravity and prevalence of the offence". REPUBLIC v. YlANNISi PANAYIOTOU MAVROMMATIS T h e case came before the Judge sitting at Morphou, on Mav 2, 1967, when the respondent in this appeal, presumably on the advice of his advocate who appeared with him, pleaded guilty to the charge. After an opening of the facts by the prosecuting police officer, as usual, and after hearing counsel in mitigation, the Judge passed sentence on the respondent, which he recorded in the following short note : " Accused to pay £ 4 5 fine. In view of the fact that accused is a first offender, I order no imprisonment or disqualification." Against this sentence the Attorney-General of the Republic, took the present appeal,, on .the ground that, in the circumstances, the sentence is manifestly inadequate considering the frequency of fatal road accidents, due to careless driving. Learned counsel gave to this Court statistical figures in support of his submission, and expressed the anxiety of the Attorney-General for the loss of life on the road due to such driving. Sentences of fine, counsel submitted, for this offence for which the punishment provided in the* Criminal Code is two years' imprisonment, cannot have the· deterrent effect which is one of the purposes of sentence in a criminal case. And in this connection he referred to Nicolaos Nearchou v. The Police which was discussed before this Court on appeal in April 1%5, and is reported in

(1965)2 C.L.R. 34. That was an appeal against conviction, learned counsel added, but the observations made regarding the nature of the offence, and the sentence of three months' imprisonment imposed in that case, as they appear at pp. 46-47 may he useful in eonridering the case in hand. We are inclined to agree with counsel that" it the trial Judge had in mind that case, he might be assisted in dealing with the present case. Reading his decision, as quoted earlier, is sufficient to lead us to the conclusion that the learned Judge acted on wrong principle in measuring the sentence imposed. And on that ground the sentence 192 must be set aside. In view of the order which we find ourselves constrained to make in this appeal, we dp fnot wish to say more in this connection. 1967 June 9 ATTORNEYGENERAL Our difficulty lies in the fact that on the record before us, we do not have sufficient material on which to impose the proper sentence. The statement of the facts constituting the,offence, aedf the·circumstances'tinder which the crime was committed, do not appear sufficiently from the note on record. The seriousness of the offence, reflected, inter alia* in the punishment provided by the legislator, requires that the relevant matter must be adequately put before the Court for the purposes of sentence. We, therefore, find ourselves compelled to have recourse to the wide powers with which this Court was vested by section 25

(3)of the Courts of Justice Law, to enable the Court to deal with such difficulties ; and we make an order, referring the case back to the District Court, to be dealt with for the purposes of sentence by another Judge. Prosecution and defence will then have the opportunity of placing, before the #Court of first instance all relevant matter. And will also have the possibility of exercising their right of appeal, if necessary. We need hardly add that the conviction which stands on respondent's own plea, lias not been challenged ; and no facts inconsistent with such plea and the conviction based thereon, can be put forward by either side, for the purposes of sentence. Order made under section 25

(3)of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (No. 14 of 1960) for the case to be returned to the District Court of Nicosia for sentence by another Judge, after hearing matter from both sides relevant to sentence, and not inconsistent with the plea of guilty and the conviction based thereon. The respondent to be summoned to attend the District Court on a day to be-'fixed the earliest possible, for the purposes of the above proceeding. It is not without difficulty that we considered it preferable, in the circumstances, to avoid committing the respondent to prison in the meantime. .; Appeal allowed. Sentenceset aside. Case referred back to the trial Court, under section 25

(3)of the Courts of Justice .Law, 1960, for sentenceby another Judge, IVi O F THE REPUBLIC v. YlANNIS PANAYIOTOC MAVHOMMATIS