(1979)1978 November 16 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., DEMETRIADES AND SAVVIDES, JJ.] SOTERIS SPYROU KOUFOU, Appellant, v. THE POLICE, Respondents. (Criminal Appeal No. 3952). Criminal Law—Sentence—Obtaining credit by false pretences— Section 301of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154—Oneyear's imprisonment—Undue Weight given to appellant's bad criminal recordDisparity of sentences—Co-accused given suspended sentences of imprisonment—Counselfor respondents concedingthat sentence rather excessive—Reduced. 5 Criminal Law—Sentence—Disparity of sentences—Principles applicable. The appellant pleaded guilty to the offence of obtaining credit by false pretences and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment. 10 The amount involved was C £ 80 and was obtained in the form of food and lodging at the house of the complainant after the appellant, who is a married man and the father of two infant children, but on bad terms with his wife, had falsely said to the complainant that he was single and intended to marry his young 15 daughter. Three other persons, who were co-accused of the appellant were sentenced to five months' imprisonment, suspended for three years, after pleading guilty to the offence of aiding and abetting the appellant to commit the above offence. On appeal against sentence: Held, that as the girl concerned knew that the appellant was a married man, though this was concealed from her parents; that as the co-accused of the appellant were given merely suspended 134 20 2 C.L.R. 5 10 Koufou τ. Police sentences of imprisonment, thus leading to such disparity of sentences as would leave the appellant with a real grievance towards the administration of justice and society as a whole (see, inter alia, Ktimatias and Another v. TheRepublic
(1978)2 C.L.R. 82at p.99);that as thetrial Court hasgiven undue weight tothe bad criminal record of the appellant inpassingon him the sentence of one year's imprisonment, which is the ma ximum punishmentprovided bylawfor the offence inquestion; and that as counsel for therespondent has stated that, inhis view, thetrial Court hasperhaps imposed a sentence which is rather excessive in thecircumstances, because it punished the appellant more for hispast than for what hehad actually done on the present occasion, this Court should intervene and reduce the sentence tooneof six months'imprisonment. 15 20 25 30 Appeal allowed. Cases referred to: Constantinou v. Republic
(1977)9-10 J.S.C. 1527 at p. 1530 (to be reported in
(1976)2C.L.R.); lacovou andOthersv. Republic
(1977)9-10 J.S.C. 1554atp. 1570(tobe reported in
(1976)2 C.L.R.); Foulias v. Police
(1978)2 C.L.R. 56atp. 58; Ktimatias and Anotherv. Republic
(1978)2 C.L.R. 82at p.
- Appeal against sentence. Appeal against sentence by Soteris Spyrou Koufou whowas convicted on the 15th September, 1978 at the District Court of Limassol (Criminal Case No. 11935/78) on onecount ofthe offence of obtaining money by false pretences, contrary to sections 297 and 301(a) of the Criminal Code Cap. 154 and was sentenced by Korfiotis, D.J.to oneyear's imprisonment. Appellant appeared in person. R. Gavrielides, Counsel ofthe Republic,for the respondents. 35 TRIANTAFYLLIDES P., gave the following judgment of the Court. This is an appeal against a sentence of one year's imprisonment, as from September 15, 1978, which was passed upon theappellant by theDistrict Court of Limassol, after he had pleaded guilty to the offence of obtaining credit by false pretences, contrary to section 301 of the Criminal Code, Cap.
- 135 Triantafyllidcs P. Koufou ?. Police
(1979)The amount involved was C£80 and credit was obtained in the sense that the appellant, who is a married man and the father of two infant children, but on bad terms with his wife, said falsely to the complainant, who is the father of a young girl, that he was single and intended to marry her, and as a 5 result he was allowed to live at the house of the complainant enjoying free food and lodging for a period of two months; thus the complainant incurred an expenditure of C£80 for the benefit of the appellant. Three other persons, who were the co-accused of the appel- 10 lant, pleaded guilty to the offence of aiding and abetting the appellant to commit the offence for which he was sent to prison and they were sentenced to five months' imprisonment, which was, however, suspended for three years. In dealing with this appeal wehave, first, to take into account 15 that it is not disputed that the girl concerned knew that the appellant is a married man, though this was concealed from her parents. Also, it is, in our view, a striking fact that, as already stated, the co-accused of the appellant were given merely suspended 20 sentences of imprisonment, thus leading to such disparity of sentences as would leave the appellant with a real grievance towards the administration of justice and society as a whole (see, in this respect, inter alia, Constantinou v. The Republic,
(1977)9/10 J.S.C. 1527, 1530*. Iacovou and Others v. The Re- 25 public,
(1977)9/10 J.S.C. 1554, 1570*, Foulias v. The Police,
(1978)2 C.L.R. 56, 58 and Ktimatias and Another v. The Republic,
(1978)2 C.L.R. 82, 99. It appears from the reasoning of the trial Judge that he has given undue weight to the bad criminal record of the appellant 30 in passing on him the sentence of one year's imprisonment, which is the maximum punishment provided by law for the particular offence to which the appellant has pleaded guilty. Counsel for the respondents has, indeed, very fairly stated before us that, in his view, too, the trial Court has perhaps 35 imposed a sentence which is rather excessive in the circum* To be reported in
(1976)2 C.L.R. 136 2 C.L.R. Koufou v. Police Trlantafyllides P. stances, because it punished the appellant more for his past than for what he had actually done on the present occasion. In the light of all these considerations we think that weshould intervene in favour of the appellant and reduce the sentence 5 imposed on him to one of six months' imprisonment as from the date when he was originally sentenced. This appeal is, therefore, allowed to that extent. Appealallowed. 137