1977 June 2 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., STAVRINIDES, L. LOIZOU, JJ.] ACHILLEAS CHARALAMBOUS KAOURAS, Appellant, v. ACHILLEAS CHARALAMBOUS KAOURAS V. THE REPUBLIC THE REPUBLIC, Respondent. {Criminal Appeal No. 3787). 1 5 10 15 Criminal Law—Sentence—Causing grievous harm with intent— Section 228(
- a)of the Criminal Code, Cap.154—Seriouswounding case—Proper measure of punishment—A substantial sentence is necessary as a general deterrent against violence—Sentence not manifestly excessive—Appeal dismissed. • . Theappellant pleaded guilty to theoffence ofcausing grievous harm to thecomplainant with intent to dohergrievous harm or to maim, disfigure or disable her, contrary to section 228(
- a)of the Criminal Code Cap. 154 and was sentenced to two and a half years* imprisonment. He was 52 years' old and married with children, but at thetime of the offence, and for about one year previously, he had been living together with the complainant. Hewasnota person with a clean past, but hehadnotany convictions of such a nature a. could be described as being similar to the above offence. The offence was committed after an altercation between the appellant and thecomplainant. Thetrial Court found that the i words used by the complainant amounted to provocation as a result ofwhich theappellant took hold ofan iron barandhitthe 20 m ' complainant with it twice on the head. The complainant was taken to hospital unconscious, with two deep lacerated wounds on her head and with her left ear bleeding; for some time her life was at risk, but, eventually, she recovered without having become incapacitated in anyway. ?5 c _Upon appeal against sentence theappellant stated that hehas >" repented for what he did under severe provocation, and that he has since been reconciled with both hiswife andthecomplainant. Held, dismissing the appeal, that bearing^in mind both the particular circumstances of the present case as well as the 335 1977 June 2 ACHILLEAS CHARALAMBOUS KAOURAS V. THE REPUBLIC pesonal circumstances of the appellant, as well as that a substantial sentence is necessary as a general deterrent against violence (sec Thomas on Principles of Sentencing, 1970 p. 93), the sentence passed on the appellant is not manifestly excessive; that this Court is not entitled to intervene in his favour for the 5 purpose of reducing it; and that, accordingly, his appeal will be dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Cases referred to: R. v. Mallinson[1964] Crim. L.R. 555; R. v. Coulson[1965] Crim. L.R. 252; R. v. Hillyard[1965] Crim. L.R. 500; R. v. Kilmartin [1963]Crim. L.R. 446at p.447. 10 Appeal against sentence. Appeal against sentence by Achilleas Charalambous Kaouras 15 who was convicted on the 7th February, 1977 at the Assize Court of Nicosia (Criminal Case No.29210/76) on one count of the offence of causing grievous harm, contrary to section 228(
- a)of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154and was sentenced by Stylianides P.D.C., Kourris, S.D.J, and Nikitas D.J. to 2% years' imprison- 20 ment. Appellant appeared in person. V. Aristodemou, Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 25 The judgment of the Court was delivered by:TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.: The appellant has appealed against the sentence of two and a half years' imprisonment which was passed upon him by an Assize Court in Nicosia after he had pleaded guilty to having caused grievous harm to Athanasia 30 Patsika, of Nicosia, on October 13, 1976, with intent to do her grievous harm or to maim, disfigure or disable her, contrary to section 228(
- a)of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154. The appellant is 52 years old and married, with children, but at the time of the offence, and for about one year previously, he 35 had been living together with the complainant in a flat in Nicosia. The offence was committed after an altercation between them at about 4a.m.; the trial Court found that the words used by the 336 complainant.amounted to provocation as a result:of which the appellant took hold of an iron bar, which happened to be handy in the flat, and hit the complainant with it twice on the head; he, then, went to the nearest police station where,he reported <*5 what had happened. The complainant was taken tohospital unconscious,with two bleep lacerated wounds on her head and with her left ear bleeding; for some time her life was at'risk, but, eventually, she recovered without having become incapacitated in any way. 10 Theappellant appeared before us in person and hestated that he has repented for what he did under severe provocation, and that he has since been reconciled with both his wife and the complainant;as"amatter of·fact the complainant was in Court and stated that she has forgiven the appellant, but his wife was 15 not present. ' Thepunishmentprovided for undersection 228 for the offence in question is imprisonment for life. Theappellant is nota person with a cleanpart,but hehasnot any convictions of such a nature as could be described as being 20 similar totheoffence with whichwe areconcernedinthepresent appeal. 25 30 35 We aredealing with thesentenceina case of serious wounding and, in this respect, the following is stated in Thomas onPrin ciples of Sentencing, 1970 (p. 93), regarding punishment for an offence of this nature:" Sentences in the majority of cases fall within the range of threetoseven years' imprisonment. Themostimportant factor influencing the choice of sentence appears to be the element of premeditation. Other factors which appear to be relevant includethedegree ofinjury intendedandactually inflicted. Useof a weapon appears to be significant mainly as an indication of premeditation. Provocation is parti cularly significant in reducing the gravity of the offence in the view of the Court". It is useful to refer, also, by analogy, to some reported cases: The report of R. v. Mallinson reads as follows in [1964] Crim. L.R. 555:- . .. . ι ."Lord.Parker C.J., Paull and Winn JJ.: May 12, 1964. 337 1977 June.2 ACHILLEAS CHARALAMBOUS KAOURAS v. THE REPUBUC 1977 June 2 ACHILLEAS CHARALAMBOUS KAOURAS V. THE REPUBUC Age: seventeen (m.). Facts: he stabbed his brotherin-law in the groin and abdomen in the course of a family . -' dispute. Sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Previous convictions: •two for dishonesty. Special considerations: he had taken far more drink than usual 5 and wasnot likelytorepeat theoffence; ontheother hand, the wounds were very grave and this sort of offence was prevalent inthearea. Decision: itwasa difficult casebut the Court was satisfied that there wasno ground for interfering with the sentence". 10 Regarding R. v. Coulson the following are stated in [1965] Crim. L.R. 252:Lord Parker C.J., Marshall and Widgery JJ.: February 15, 1965. Age: 22(m.). Facts: he stabbed his wife, cutting her face badly. He was provoked byher taunting 15 him about another man, but he had deliberately armed himself with*the knife. Previous convictions:- for minor offences only: fines, probation. Special considerations: he had not picked up the knife in the heat of the moment. People must be deterred from using knives. Decision: 20 3 years' imprisonment upheld". " Also, the report of R. v. Hillyard in [1965] Crim. L.R. 500 reads as follows:" Lord Parker C.J;, Howard and Widgery JJ.: April 6, 1965. Age: 23(m.). Facts: he was convicted of shoot- 25 ing with intent to disable or do grievousbodily harm. He shot at his brother with a 22 rifle after being beaten up by ' him. His defence was that he only shot to frighten. Previous convictions: none. Decision: 2% years imprisonment upheld. But for the mitigating circum- 30 stances a far heavier sentence would have been justified". Lastly, reference should bemadetoa caseinwhichtheculpability of the accused was, in the circumstances, much less than that of the present appellant and, in which, a sentence of three years' imprisonment wasreduced to oneof twoyears' imprison- 35 ment; it is the case of R. v.Kilmartin the report of which is as follows in [1963] Crim. L.R. 446 447:" Lord Parker C.J., Ashworth and Winn JJ.: TheTimes, March 12, 1963. Age: twenty-one (m.). Facts: pleaded guilty to-wounding with intent; sentenced to three 40 338 years', imprisonment'and recommended .for^.deportation. Hewas involved in a public-house fight. Hewas attacked 1 by a man and a girl/who used a stiletto heel.. Outside the i -'public house the girl armed herself with the heel and a glass. Hethenpicked upa milk bottle,broke it andthrust it into theback of the man. Previous history: came from Ireland in 1961; worked well;, no previous convictions. Special considerations: he had been gravely provoked and was of previous good character. Decision: Sentence varied to two years' imprisonment; recommendation jquashedW .· t In thelight of all the foregoing and bearing in mind boththe particular circumstances of the present case'as well as the personal circumstances -of the appellant, as well as that, as pointed out.by Thomas,supra, at pp. Ί 1 , 12, "a substantial sentence is necessary as a general deterrent against violence", we have decided that thesentencepassed on theappellant is not manifestly excessive, as he contends,and, therefore, we are not entitled to intervene in his favour for the purpose of reducing it; as a result,- his appeal is dismissed accordingly. ' Appeal dismissed. 339 1977 June.2 ACHILLEAS CHARALAMBOUS KAOURAS v. THE REPUBUC