[TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., L. LOIZOU, MALACHTOS. ANDREAS ATHANASSIOU PHILIPPOU AND ANOTHER. Appellants, v. I Ml Respondent. (Criminal Appeals Nos. 3653, 3654). Criminal Law—Sentence—Store-breaking—Sections 291 and 294(
- a)of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154—Nine and eighteen months' imprisonment—Young offenders—Aged 24 and 20—Social investigation reports—Not asked for 5 by trial Court—Produced before Court of Appeal— Their contents showing that appellants not hardened criminals as described by trial Court in its judgment— Had they been before trial Court it would, in all pro bability, have imposed a more lenient sentence—Desir10 ability to individualize sentence in "breaking offences" —Effect of favourable probation report—Less regard should have been paid to retribution and more to possi bility of reformation—Appellants have fully co-operated with police in the investigation of the offence—Sentences 15 reduced. Young offenders—Sentence—Social investigation report— When it is contemplated to send to prison a young offender such report should he asked for and dulyconsidered. 20 Store-breaking—Sections 291 and 294(
- a)of Code, Cap. 154—Sentence—Desirability lizing sentence in "breaking offences". 25 30 Offences"—Sentence—Desirability the Criminal of individua to individunl'Te The two appellants complain against senience> oi imprisonment of nine and eighteen months, respectively. imposed on them by the Military Court upon their plea of guilty to a charge of store-breaking. Appellant 2 was given a longer sentence, because, at his own request. there was taken into consideration, in passing sentence. another similar offence. 191 ANDRLAS ATHANASSIOU PHILIPPOU AND ANOTHER V. THE REPUBLIC "Breaking 1975 Dec. 22 JJ-] RlPUBt Κ 1975 Dec. 22 ANDREAS ATHANASSIOU PHILIPPOU AND ANOTHER V. THE REPUBLIC The appellants being young first offenders, aged 24 and 20 years, respectively, the Court of Appeal called for social investigation reports whose contents did show that the appellants were not hardened criminals, as they were described by the trial Court in its judgment. In 5 this connection the Court of Appeal observed that "unfortunately, the Military Court, in spite of repeated admonitions by us in other cases to the effect that when it is contemplated to send to prison a young offender a social investigation report should be asked for and 10 duly considered, did not request, and so it did not have before it, such reports in respect of the appellants". Counsel for the respondent conceded that had the said reports been before the trial Court, it would, in all probability, have imposed more lenient sentences. 15 Held, 1. In "breaking offences" it is desirable to individualize, as much as possible the sentence. (See Thomas on Principles of Sentencing pp. 138, 139). 2. A favourable probation report may operate in a decisive manner in favour of a young olfender who has 20 committed an offence such as that for which the appellants have been sent to prison. (See Thomas (supra) at p. 20). 3. Bearing in mind that in The Atorney-Generalof the Republic v. Stavrou and Others, 1962 C.L.R. 274, 25 this Court did take the exceptional course of putting on probation persons who had been found guilty of shop-breaking, we feel that we can take, in the present case, too, a rather specially lenient course, by reducing the sentences passed on the appellants. 30 4. Each case depends on its own particular merits and in the present instance we feel that there should have been paid less regard to the aspect of retribution and more to the possibility of reforming the appellants within as short as possible periods of time. 35 5. We have, also, taken into account the fact that the appellants have co-operated fully with the police in the investigations of the offences committed by them; and, as a result, a lot of the goods stolen were traced. 6. Consequently, the sentence imposed on appellant 40 192 I is reduced to one of five months' imprisonment and that imposed on appellant 2 to one of twelve months' imprisonment. Appeals allowed. 5 Cases referred to: 1Θ75 Dec. 22 ANDRUAS ATHANASSIOU PHILIPPOU AND ANOTHER V. Attorney-Generalof the Republic v. Stavrou and Others, THE REPUBLIC 1962 C.L.R. 274. Appeals against sentence. Appeals against sentence by Andreas Athanassiou Phi10 lippou and Another who were convicted on the l l t h September, 1975 at the Military Court sitting at Larnaca (Case No. 159/75) on one count, of the offence of siorcbreaking contrary to sections 20, 21. 291 and 294fai of the Criminal Code Cap. 154 and section 5 of the Mill· 15 tary Criminal Code and Procedure Law, 1064 (Law 40/64) and were sentenced to eighteen months* impri sonment and nine months' imprisonment each, respe ctively. M. Papapctrou with A. Mothikolonis, for appellant i. 20 M. Papapetrou. for appellant 2. 5. Tamassios, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered by :- TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P. : The two appellants were sen tenced by the Military Court to terms of imprisonment 25 of nine and eighteen months, respectively, rr. from September 11, 1975, when they pleaded guilty to a charge of store-breaking; the store concerned is a Customs store at Lamaca. Appellant 2 was given a longer sentence because, at 30 his own request, there was taken into consideration, in passing sentence, another similar offence committed by him when he broke into the s?me store on another occasion. Both appellants complain that the 35 upon them are manifestly excessive. sentences prised There is no doubt that the offences in question are of a serious nature and, therefore, it cannot be said that 193 1975 Dec. 22 ANDREAS ATHANASSIOU PHILIPPOU AND ANOTHER V. ΤΙΤΕ REPUBLIC the sentences in question are not justifiable if only the seriousness of the offences is to be taken into account. But the appellants are young first offenders, aged 24 and 20 years, respectively; and. unfortunately, the Mili tary Court, in spite of repeated admonitions by us in 5 other cases to the effect that when it is contemplated to send to prison a young offender a social im'esligation report should be asked for and duly considered, did not request, and so it did not have before it, such re ports in respect of the appellants. These reports are now 10 before us (having been prepared on our instructions) and their contents do show that the appellants are not hardened criminals, as they were described by the trial court in its judgment. It has, in the circumstances, been fairly conceded by 15 counsel for the respondent that, had the said reports been before the trial court, it would, in all probability, have imposed more lenient sentences. In Thomas on Principles of Sentencing it is stated (at pp. 138, 139) that in "breaking offences", such as that 20 involved in his case, it is desirable to individualize, as much as possible, the sentence; and, elsewhere (at p. 20) in the same textbook, it is pointed out that a favourable probation report may operate in a decisive manner in favour of a young offender who has committed an 25 offence such as that for which the appellants have been sent to prison. Bearing in mind that in The Attorney-General of the Republic v. Stavrou and Others. 1962 C.L.R. 274, this Court did take the exceptional course of putting on pro- 30 bation persons who had been found guilty of >hop-breaking, we feel that wc can take, in the present case, too, a rather specially lenient course, by reducing the sentences passed on the appellants. Each case depends on its own particular merits and in the present instance wc feel 35 that there should have been paid less regard to the a>pect of retribution and more to the possibility of reforming the appellants within as short as possible periods of time. We have, also, taken into account the fact that the appellants have co-operated fully with the police in the 194 1975 Dec. 22 investigations of the offences committed by them; and, as a result, a lot of the goods stolen were traced. Consequently, the sentence imposed on appellant 1 is reduced to one of five months' imprisonment and that imposed on appellant 2 to one of twelve months' imprisonment; and these appeals are allowed accordingly. ANDREAS ATHANASSIOU PHILIPPOU AND ANOTHER V. TIU Appeals allowed. 195 RTPUBLIC INDEX TO SUBJECT MATTER Page ACCESSORY AFTER LAW—Parties the fact THE FACT—See CRIMINAL to offences—Accessory after ACCOMPLICE—See EVIDENCE—Accomplice ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE—Trial ludge wrongly treating as corroboration of accomplice's evidence what he found to he false testimony given by appellants—Witnesses threatened with arrest and detention if they would not give statement implicating appellants—And sublec'ed to psychological picssure—Their evi dence, even if technically in law admissible in evidence, could not be safely relied on—Convi ction quashed in the interests of the proper administration of justice (Eftapsounus & Another ν Police) 149 APPEAL—See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE "Substantial miscarnage of justice"—See CRI MINAL PROCEPURF — Appeal — "Substantial miscarriage of lustice " APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE.—See Sr.NTFWF— Appeal against sentence ASSAULT—Common assault—Section 242 of the Criminal Code, Cap I*>4—Sentence—See SFNTFNCI—Common assault BAIL—Appeal—New tiial—Order for cus'edy pending new trial—Remains in foicr until accused brought hefoic District Court for new trial— Once so brought up to trial judge to decide whether or not they will remain in custody pending completion of new trial (Eftapsounus <" Another ν Police) —Appeal—Bail pending appeal—Powers of Court ls of Appeal discret.on(ir>—It an unusual and exceptional course to grant hail pending appeal 106 149