clr/1974/1974_2_4.pdf

1974 Jan. 11 VASSOS MANOU CHRKTODOULOU [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., STAVRINIDES, HADJIANASTASSIOU, JJ.] VASSOS MANOLI CHRISTODOULOU, Appellant, v. V. THE REPUBLIC THE REPUBLIC Respondent. {Criminal Appeal No.3525). Homicide—Contrary to section 205 of the Criminal Code,Cap. 154 (as amended by Law No. 3 of 1962)—Sentence—Twelve years' imprisonment—No sufficientsignificance attributedby thetrial Courtto threeweightyfactors—Emotionalstress of the Appellant —It isan important mitigatingfactor—Personal circumstances of the convict (Appellant)—Retribution should not be such as to stifle in the Appellant theexpectation thathe will have a reasonable, in the circumstances, early chance to rebuildhis life— Sentenceimposed manifestly excessive—Reduced to oneof eight years' imprisonment. Sentence—Mitigatingfactors—Sentence manifestly excessive—Reduced on appeal—Seefurther supra. The facts sufficiently appear in the judgment of the Court reducing the sentence imposed from twelve years' imprisonment to one of eight years' imprisonment. Appeal against sentence. -j Appeal against sentence by Vassos Manoii Christodoulou who was convicted on the 24th October, 1973 at the Assize Court of Famagusta (Criminal Case No. 5157/73) on one count of the offence of homicidecontrary to section 205ofthe Criminal Code Cap. 154,as amended by the Criminal Code (Amendment) Law, 1962 (Law No. 3/62) and was sentenced by Sawides, P.D.C., Demetriou, Ag. S.D.J, and Chrysostomis,D.J.totwelve years' imprisonment. L. Clerides with E. Lemonaris for the Appellant. CI.Antoniades,Counselofthe Republic, for the Respondent. 4 The judgment of the Court was delivered by:- 1974 Jan. 11 TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.: The Appellant appeals against the _ sentence of twelve years' imprisonment which was passed on him VASSOS MANOLI by an Assize Court when he was competed, on a plea of guilty, CHMSTODOULOU v of the offence of homicide, contrary to section 205 of the Cri· minal Code, Cap. 154, as amended by the Criminal Code (Amendment) Law, 1962 (Law 3/62). The homicide was committed on July 21, 1973, in Famagusta; and the victim, Maria loannou Hjistylli, was a young woman who was, at the time, cohabiting with the Appellant; their cohabitation had commenced four years earlier and as a result of it a child was born in December, 1971. It appears that during the last few months before her death Maria decided to stop cohabiting with the Appellant, who was, however, still passionately in love with her and was doing his best to dissuade her from leaving him; he even enlisted for this purpose the assistance of a welfare officer. It seems that Maria remained, nevertheless, determined to leave him and that, consequently, the situation became critical, reaching its climax during the twenty-four hours immediately before the homicide. In the morning of the fateful day the couple went to the welfare office for yet another effort to solve their differences and then they returned to their house; Maria entered the bedroom and the Appellant followed her, locking the door of the room behind him. Shortly afterwards, Maria jumped out, through the window, into the yard; the Appellant followed her and chased her, caught up with her and started, to hit her with, at first, his hands; then he got hold of a stick which he found, unfortunately, near at hand and he began striking her with it; as a result her skull was fractured and she died. All these happened in broad daylight and in the presence of bystanders who did not intervene to rescue the victim, but were only trying by words to make the Appellant desist from assaulting Maria. One of the means to which Maria had resorted in her effort to make the Appellant let her go away from him was to tell him, falsely, that the child was not his, but of another m a n ; so, the Appellant, after he had killed Maria, went straight to the police and said that he had killed his mistress because they 5 1974 Jan. 11 VASSOS MANOU CHRBTODOULOU V. THE REPUBLIC had had a quarrel when she told him that their child was not his. Having considered the reasons given by the trial Judges for their appealed from decision we have reached the conclusion thattheydidnotattributesufficient significance tothreeweighty, in our opinion, factors, namely, first, the great emotional stress under which the Appellant waslabouring at the material time, secondly, the fact that the killing was committed by a stick which just happened to be lying about in the yard, and, thirdly, that the Appellant is now the only protector of the child. Emotional stress, as correctly pointed out in Thomas on Principles of Sentencing at p. 184, is, indeed, an important mitigating factor. We have noted, too, that the trial Court appears to have given undue weight to the fact that the Appellant delivered repeated blows in the course of killing his victim, as if it could be expected of him, in the highly excited condition in which he was, to have appreciated clearly what he was doing. Itismostunfortunate thatayoungwomanwaskilled. Wedo takeaveryseriousviewofthiscase;itisnottherightofanyone to pester a woman, and eventually assault and k:ll her, because she no longer wants to live with him; and society has to be protected against conduct of this kind. We are, therefore, not losing sight of the deterrent aspect of the punishment in this case. But we must, also, as in every case, take duly into account the personal circumstances of the Appellant, and, really, we do not think that retribution for his crime should be such as to stifle in him the expectation that he will have a reasonably early chance to rebuild his life. In the lighi of all the foregoing we think that the sentence passed upon him is manifestly excessive and we reduce it to one of eight years* imprisonment. This appeal is, therefore, allowed accordingly. Appeal allowed. 6