clr/1968/1968_2_162.pdf

(1)(o) of the Motor Vehicles Regulations 1959—Appellant first offender—5/(7/ sentence not excessive in the circumstances of the case. Sentence—See above. The facts sufficiently appear in the judgment of the Court dismissing this appeal against sentence. Appeal against s e n t e n c e . Appeal against sentence by Constantinos Sophocleous who was convicted on the 30th August, 1968, at the District Court of Limassol (Criminal Case No. 9493/68) on one count of the offence of sounding the horn of a vehicle unnecessarily contrary to regulation 5 8 ( l ) ( o ) of the Motor Vehicles Regulations 1959 and was sentenced by I.oris, D.J., to pay a fine of £25. St. G. McBride, for the appellant. A. Frangos, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. VASSILIADES, P. : T h e judgment of the Court will be delivered by Mr. Justice Triantafyllides. TRIANTAFYLLIDES, J. : In this case the appellant appeals against a sentence of £25 fine imposed on him after he had pleaded guilty to the offence of sounding his horn unnecessarily in an inhabited area of Limassol, on the NicosiaLimassol main road, at 3 a.m., on the 2nd June, 1968, contrary to regulation 58

(1)(o) of the Motor Vehicles Regulations 1959. After the plea of guilty the prosecuting officer stated to the trial Court—before which the appellant was legally represented—that there was no traffic at all or pedestrians in the road at the material time and that, after the accused had been stopped by a police constable, and was informed 163 that he had violated the relevant Regulations, he set off on his way and, as soon as he had proceeded for a distance of about a hundred meters, he sounded again the horn of his car, without any reason whatsoever ; also, the trial Court was told that the blowing of horns in Limassol is a prevalent offence and it creates a great nuisance to the general public. None of these statements was denied by the appellant; his counsel pleaded, only, in mitigation, that the appellant has been a professional driver'for fifteen years—with apparently a clean record—that the area in question was not thickly inhabited and that he was apologizing for what he did and was applying for leniency. The learned trial Judge took the view that it was, in the circumstances, necessary to impose a rather severe sentence for the purpose of protecting the public from annoyance, in view of the offence in question being a prevalent one. Mr. McBride, who appeared for the first time, today, for the appellant, has submitted that, on the whole, the sentence imposed on the appellant is manifestly excessive, and that it should be reduced ; he has added that he finds himself to be rather handicapped by the fact that things which could be said in mitigation, in favour of his client, were not placed before the trial Court. But we have to go by the record before us, especially as the appellant was legally represented before the Court below. Bearing in mind all the material on record before us, and the reasons given by the learned trial Judge as to why he imposed a sentence of £2S fine—after having duly taken into consideration that the appellant was a first offender— we take the view that in the circumstances of this case it is not warranted to disturb the said sentence as being manifestly excessive ; especially, as it is high time to be realized by all concerned'that the peace and comfort of the inhabitants should cease being most annoyingly disturbed by the unlawful use of horns of motor vehicles. In the result, therefore, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. Mr. McBride has stated that the appellant is a man of very limited means ; if there is any question of allowing him time within which to pay the fine, this is a matter which may be dealt with through his taking the appropriate steps before the trial Court. Appeal dismissed. 163 \%8 Nov. 21 CONSTANT! NOS SOPHOCLEOUS V. T H E POLICE