CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CYPRUS IN ITS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND ON APPEAL FROM THE ASSIZE COURTS AND DISTRICT COURTS [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., STAVRINIDES, L. LOI/.OU. JJ.] 1975 Jan. 8 THEODOROS HERODOTOU, THEODOROS Appellant, v. THE THE POLICE, Respondents. (Criminal Appeal No. 3611). Criminal Law—Sentence—One month's imprisonment for unlawful possession of property—Section 309 of the Criminal Code Cap. 154—Looting of abandoned and unprotected property—Need to deal with offences of this 5 nature with severity—Sentence inadequate—Increased. Sentence—Inadequate sentence—Increase. Unlawful possession of property—Section 309 of the Criminal Code Cap. 154—Sentence—Increase of sentence. Sentence—Mitigating 10 ]5 factors—Family circumstances. This was an appeal against a sentence of one month's imprisonment which was passed upon ' the appellant after he had pleaded guilty to the offence of unlawful possession of property, worth £10, namely three iron sticks and three water pipes, which were reasonably . suspected of being stolen; actually, the appellant - had admitted to the police that he took the sticks and the pipes from abandoned houses in the Turkish village of Episkopi. ί HERODOTOU v. POLICE 1975 Jan. 8 THEODOROS HERODOTOU T H E POLICE Counsel for the appellant has argued, mainly, that the sentence imposed on his client is wrong in principle, because the judge took unduly into account the fact that the country was facing destruction as a result of the Turkish invasion, and that the sentence is excessive mas- 5 much as the trial judge disregarded mitigating personal circumstances of the appellant. He was a married man, thirty-three years old, with a sick wife and five minor children; he was also a first offender. Held, (I) We cannot agree that the situation created 10 by the Turkish invasion of Cyprus was an irrelevant consideration in the present case: There can be no doubt that as a result of such situation many innocent people found themselves in the unfortunate position of having to abandon their properties; amongst them were Ihe Ϊ5 Turkish-Cypriot owners of the houses from which the appellant stole the sticks and pipes; what has happened ,in this case is in fact looting of abandoned and unpro tected property.
(2)We fully share the view expressed in the rather 20 similar case of Tattaris and Others v. The Republic
(1965)2 C.L.R. 1 (at p. 7) by Vassiliades, J., (as he then was) and, therefore, we regard the punishment which has been imposed on the appellant as being inadequate and having to be increased. 25
(3)We do agree, however, that his family circumstances must be taken into account as mitigating factors (see, inter alia, Evangelou v. The Police
(1970)2 C.L.R. 45). So, we shall refrain from imposing on him a sentence of imprisonment more severe than double the one which was originally passed and we, consequently, sentence him to two months' imprisonment as from to-day. 30 Appealdismissed. Cases referred to: Georghiou v. The Police
(1966)2 C.L.R. 18; Tattaris and Others v. The Republic
(1965)2 C.L.R. 1 at p. 7; Evangelou v. The Police
(1970)2 C.L.R. 45. 35 1975 Jan 8 Appeal against sentence. Appeal against sentence by Theodoros Herodotou who was convicted on the 27th December. 1974 at the District Court of Limassol (Criminal Case No. 10515/74) 5 on one count of the offence of unlawful possession of property contrary to sections 309 and 20 of the Criminal Code Cap. 154 and was sentenced by S. Demetriou, S.D.J, to one month's imprisonment. THEODOROS HERODOTOU THE POLICE C. Tsirkles, for the appellant. 10 Gl. Michaelufes, for the respondents. The judgment of the Court was delivered by :- TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P. : The appellant has appealed against the sentence of one month's imprisonment which was passed upon him on the 27th December, 1974, after 15 he had pleaded guilty to the offence of unlawful possession of property, worth £10, namely three iron sticks and three water pipes, which were reasonably suspected of being stolen; actually, the appellant had admitted to the police that he took the sticks and the pipes from abandoned 20 houses in the Turkish village of Episkopi. Counsel for the appellant has argued, mainly, that the sentence imposed on his client is wrong in principle. because the judge took unduly into account the fact that the country was facing destruction as a result of the 25 Turkish invasion, and that the sentence is excessive inasmuch as the trial judge disregarded mitigating personal circumstances of the appellant. We agree with counsel for the appellant that—as was stated in, inter alia, Georghiou v. The Police
(1966)2 30 C.L.R. 18—"the sentence in every case depends to a great extent on the facts of that particular case"; but, we cannot agree that the situation created by the Turkish invasion of Cyprus was an irrelevant consideration in the present case : There can be no doubt that as a result of 35 such situation many innocent people found themselves in the unfortunate position of having to abandon their properties; amongst them were the Turkish-Cypriot owners of· the houses from which the appellant stole the sticks and pipes; what has happened in this 'case is in fact looting of 40 abandoned and unprotected property. 3 / 1975 L Jar THEODOROS HERODOTOU v · THE POUCE in the rather similar case of Tattaris and Others v. The Republic
(1965)2 C.L.R. 1, Vassiliades, J. as he t h e n WaS » Said ( a t P· 7 ) :" "Coming now to the appeal against sentence of appellant No. 1, the situation prevailing in Limassol 5 a t t j i e tjme the offence in question was committed, namely, during the last week of March of this year, must not be lost sight of. The circumstances in which the cow in question was stolen amount to looting and it seems clear that the accused, taking advantage \Q of the situation resorted to looting. Bearing this important factor in mind and also the leading part played by this appellant in the commission of this offence, the Court is of the opinion that, in all the circumstances, the sentence of three years imposed 15 on this appellant by the trial Court is manifestly inadequate; and therefore, making use of our powers i. under section 145
(2)of the Criminal Procedure Law (Cap. 155), we increase the sentence of the first appellant on count
(1)to a sentence of five 20 years imprisonment from the date of conviction. The offence could not have been looked upon as being mere animal stealing; at times such as the present, looting property of any citizen of the Republic, be he Greek or Turk, who happens not 25 to be in a position to look after it, is an abominable crime against society as a whole, and nothing less than full severity is an adequate measure for it." We fully share the above view and, therefore, we regard the punishment which has been imposed on the 30 appellant as being inadequate and having to be increased. We do agree, however, that his family circumstances must be taken into account as mitigating factors (see inter alia, Evangelou v. The Police
(1970)2 C.L.R. 45) : He is a married man, thirty-three years old, with a sick 35 wife and five minor children; he is, also, a first offender. So, we shall refrain from imposing on him a sentence of imprisonment more severe than double the one which was originally passed and we, consequently, sentence him to two months' imprisonment as from today. 40 Appeal dismissed. Sentenceincreased. 4