196S Jan 11 [VASSILIADLb, P. i K I A M A t Y L l lDli> AND JOSH*HIL>LS JJ J GEORCHIOELIA Ρ&ΑΗλ·, ν T H E POI κ t G E O R G H I O S EL1A PSARAS, Appellant, ι "I H I : POLICE, Respondents (Criminal Appeal i\o 2976) Criminal Law —Sentence—Grievous bodily harm contiar) to section 231 of the Criminal Code, Cap l54—Con\i(tion and sentence— Appeal officer—Sentence against —The appellant increased by the Supreme Human rights—Constitution a police Court—See, also, Iwrebelow oj the Republic oj Cyprus, 7, 8, II— Safeguarding ihe right to lift, corporal liberty and security—Duty oj the Courts to sustain internatio nally accepted human rights and safeguarded agreements by international like the i.uropean Convention oj Human Appeal—Sentence—Appeal officer Articles integrity, Rights sentence - Appeal In a police agamsl convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for causing grievous hodih harm routran to section 231 oj the Criminal Code—Sentence increased b\ the Supieme Com ι Sentence —Appeal— Sentence inc reused —See above This is an appeal by α policeman against conviction i o i causing grievous bodily h a r m t o α young student , and against α sentence ol 12 months' imprisonment imposed on the appellant in ihe D i i t r i c t Court ol Kimaiiusta, under section 231 ol the C r i m i n a l Code, C a p I s4 In dismissing the appeal Δ\Κ\ in increasing llic scutenee to one o l eighteen months i m p i i s o n m c n t and alter revicwiim the laefs, the C o u r t Held, ( I ) this C o u r t ts d u l y bound to take into account the legal as well as the general aspect ol this case Ihe offence of which the appellant stands convicted is punishable, under section 231 o f the L u m i n a l Code, w i t h mipnsonment up to se\en yeais It moreover constitutes a violation o l the human light o l the vielim to c o i p o i a l m t e g i i l y , saleguarded by Λ ι t i d e 7 ol the ( o n s i i i u i i o n It is a llagiant M o l a t i o n hv a Police Ollieet. o l the piovisions o f Aitielcs 8 S and 11 of the Constitution which prohibit any •'inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment" and safeguard the ·' right to liberty and security of person ". The object of these provisions is the protection of these human rights, . • established • by international agreements (like the European Convention of Human Rights, and the relevant Covenant of. the United Nations) to which the Republic of Cyprus is a signatory.
(2)There can be no doubt that the conduct on the part of a police officer towards a young schoolboy in the circumstances under which the offence was committed, is not only illegal ; it is completely unacceptable. This must be reflected in the punishment.
(3)We have thus reached the conclusion that the sentence imposed by the trial Court is insufficient to meet the case. In view of the serious disciplinary, financial and other consequences which are bound to follow the conviction und sentence in this case, we have decided to confine the increase to six months in addition to the term imposed. The sentence, therefore, shall be increased to one of eighteen months to run from today. . Appeal against conviction , and sentence dismissed. Sentence increased as stated above. Appeal against c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e . Appeal against conviction and sentence hv Georghios Elia Psaras who was convicted on the 17th November, 1967 at the District Court of Famagusta (Criminal Case No. 4446/67) on one count of the offence of grievous harm, contrary to section 231 of the Criminal' Code Cap. 154 and was sentenced bv Fikis, D.J., to twelve months' imprison- ' ment. ' G. Tornaritis with K: Saveriades, for the appellant. A. Frangos, Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents.' T h e judgment of the Court was delivered by : VASSII.IADKS, P. : 'Phis is an appeal against conviction for causing grievous bodily harm ; and against a sentence 9 1%8 Jan. II GEORGHIOS ELIA PSARAP v. T H E POLICE 1968 _" GI-ORGHIO* J d n hi i\ f t w e h e months' imprisonment imposed on the appellant m the District Court of Famagusta, under section 231 of l n e Criminal Code, Cap 154 0 P--AR-\v Tm POLIO As regards the appeal against conviction, it has alread\ been made clear during the hearing that this Court is of the opinion, that on the e\idence on record it was open to the trial Court to convict the appellant Indeed, one could hardly expect a different verdict As regards sentence, the matter has gi\cn us considerable anxiet\ We are dealing with a sentence which is hound to ha\e serious repercussions on the appellant's career as a policeman, while on the other hand, \\c must bear in mind that it was imposed for an offence committed while he was on police duty. T o both these matters we have gi\en out utmost care T h e main facts of the case are as follows : Λ young student ot the d y m n a s i u m of Famagusta while walking with some of his friends in a public road, he was stopped bv a police car into which he was compelled to enter against his will, b\ the appellant policeman without anv Court warrant, because he had been seen earlier that day, talking to a schoolgirl, the daughter of a police ofhcei 1he arrested schoolboy was taken in the police vehicle to the Central Police Station of the town, outside the entrance of which the car stopped for a while Such was the state of fear in which that \oungster found himself that he did not even attempt to ask for help either from anv policeman theie, or from any c m l i a n in the road At the doorstep of a Police Station (the very existence of which n>mainlv lor the protection ot people and their legal rights) this voung d v i n n a s i u m schoolboy lelt that lie could not ask tor help or protection. Such was the condition in which he was d n \ c n by his contact with the appella it on thatd<i\· T h e i,e\t stage oi the tacts, is that the appellant dro\c the polici vehicle under his eontiol to a non-trcquentcd place wrier" he used \iolcnee, resulting to the injuries described 1 / the medical evidence, one of which was the tractuie ol the fifth metacarpal bone of the boy's right hand T h e r e can be no doubt that this is a case causing gra\c m m cm 10 There has been a statement today in Court, by learned Counsel who appeared for the Police, that the appellant acted on his own initiative ; and that his action was not the result of instructions from his superiors, but on the contrary, it was incompatible with their directions, and standing orders. Notwithstanding this statement, I confess that, personally, 1 am still in doubt whether a young policeman, of the age of the appellant (25 years old according to the charge) would go as far as to act contrary to the instructions of his superiors, in a serious matter such as this, if he felt that his action would be unacceptable to his superiors and likely to have disciplinary consequences. Be that as it may, this young policeman has now to face alone the consequences of what happened on that day, either because he is solely responsible or because he chose to take upon himself all the responsibility. We have before us facing a serious charge, a young man of 25 years of age who joined the Police after he completed his secondary education about seven years ago. One would have expected that after seven years of training in the Police Force, his conduct, both while on duty and while off, would reflect the results of such training. From mv experience in the Courts of Cyprus, 1 am satisfied that in the Police Force of the Island the principles of good discipline, and respect for the law are well established and are properly enforced. Especially this is the case with the senior officers and the elder members of the Force. I have no doubt that they shall view this case with the same concern as we do in this Court. We, moreover, like to feel that the appropriate Police authority will do their best tofind out the root of the trouble ; and that it will take all necessary steps to eradicate it. The complainant is not the only victim of such trouble. The worse victim is the appellant himself. After a seven years of hard work to build up a career in the Police Force of his country, this young man faces now the catastrophe of his plans, in addition to the serious consequences from a sentence of imprisonment. On the other hand, this Court is duty-bound to take into account the legal as well as the general aspect of this case. The offence of which the appellant stands convicted is punishable, under section 231 of the Criminal Code (Cap. 154), with imprisonment up to seven years. It moreover constitutes a violation of the human right of the victim to corporal integrity, safeguarded by Article 7 of Π 1968 Jim. 11' GEORGHIOS ELIA PSARAS v. Tin: POLICE 1968 •'an- u ,-. ~~ the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus. It is a flagrant violation by a Police officer, of the provisions of Articles 8 and 11 of the Constitution which prohibit any " i n h u m a n GEORGHIO? ELIA PSARA? ϊ.·. Tin: POLICL , · or degrading punishment or treatment and safeguard the " right to liberty and security of person " . T h e object f these provisions is the protection of these human rights, 0 established in the contemporary world by international agreements (like the European Convention of Human Rights, and the relevant Covenant of the United Nations) to which the Republic of Cyprus is a signatory. In the present dav in civilized world, the Courts have the dutv and responsibility to sustain and enforce the internationally accepted human rights, whenever these are involved or violated in a case before them. With these considerations in mind this Court has now to decide whether the sentence of twelve months' imprison ment imposed on the appellant by the trial Judge, is manifestly excessive, as contended on his behall ; whether it is the proper sentence, in the circumstances ; or it is manifestly inadequate. T h e r e can be no doubt, in our view, that such conduct on the part of a police olficer towards a young schoolboy in the circumstances under which the offence was committed, is not only illegal ; it is completely unacceptable. T h i s must be reflected in the punishment. Only severe sentences can check and effectively discourage abuse ol power bv police officers so inclined. We have thus readied the conclusion, not without regret, that the sentence imposed by the trial Court, is insufficient to meet the case. We found considerable difficulty in deciding the extent ot the increase which has to be made to the sentence. In view of the serious disciplinary, financial and other consequences which are bound to follow the com iction and sentence in this case, we have decided to eonline the increase to six m o n t h s in addition to the term imposed ; in other words to increase the sentence to eighteen months imprisonment trom t )day. We wuukl, however, add a clear warning that offences involving violation of human rights by persons in authr.ntv may have to be treated with more severity, : if this ca;.. : fails to have the intended deterrent effect. In the remit the appeal against conviction is dismissed; and the se. fence is increased to one of eighteen months' imprisonme it from todav. Appeal against conviction dismissed. Sentence, increased as stated above. \2