2 CIA 1979 April 19 [TRIANTAFYLUDES, P., L. LOIZOU, MALACHTOS, JJ.] CHRISTAKIS THEODOROU, Appellant, v. THE POLICE, Respondents. (Criminal AppealNo. 4021). 5 10 15 20 Criminal Law—Sentence—Common assault, publicinsultand disturbance—Footballer attackingreferee—Two months' imprisonment —Mitigating factors—Personal circumstances of appellant as appearing insocialinvestigation reportwhich wasnot before the trial Court—Appellant twenty-twoyearsold, the main supporter of a largefamily, withaperfectlygoodrecord as a citizen, not normallyof a violent natureandhas expressed his repentanceDoubts whether trial Court would not have imposedashorter sentence hadit had in mind the said report—Sentence reduced. The appellant pleaded guilty to the offences of common assault, public insult and disturbance and was sentenced to two months' imprisonment in relation to the assault, to one month's imprisonment for the insult, and the disturbance was taken into consideration inpassing sentence. Theoffences werecommitted during a rural football match between twovillage teams,in one ofwhich the appellant wasa player. After he had been sent off bythereferee,and after thereferee had sentofftwoother players of the appellant's team, he entered the field and attacked the referee, with the result that part of hisattire wastorn, and,also, insulted him by using very vulgar language indeed. Upon appeal against sentence there was produced a social investigation report which was not before the trial Court when it passed the aforesaid sentence. 25 Held, (after dealing with the seriousness of the incidentin question and theapproach of the Courtof Appealto offences of 191 Tbeodorou v. Police c (1ST79) this nature)that from' the.social.investigation report, which wasnot before thetrial Court, it appearsthat,indeed, the appellant, wh.o.is.only4wenty-two yearsold and the main.supporter of a large family, has a perfectly good record as a citizen and is not normally of-a violent nature,"and has',also,sincethecommis- 5 sion of the offence in question expressed his repentance, having realized the gravity of his error; that, therefore, this Court entertains doubts whetherthetrialCourt, hadit had inmind the said report,would not have imposed;a shorter sentenceof imprisonment; and that, accordingly,with some reluctance thisCourt 10 has decided that the safest course is to reduce the sentence to one month's imprisonment. Appeal allowed. Per curiam: Had the social"investigation report been available at the trial, and had it been taken into account then, this 15 Court might-not have been inclined to intervene in favour of the appellant, because the sentence of two months' imprisonment would have been imposed with a full picture ofallrelevant considerations; and it must not belost sight of, in this respect, that it is,primarily, 20 thetask of a trial Court toassesssentence,and itisnot • for this Court to reassess it on appeal. Cases referred to: Hapsides v. Police
(1969)2 C.L.R.
- Appeal against sentence. 25 Appeal against sentence by Christakis Theodorou who was convicted on the 19th March, 1979 at the District Court of Nicosia (Criminal Case No. 85/79) on three counts of the offences of common assault, public insult and disturbance, contrary to sections 242, 99 and 95,respectively, of the Criminal 30 Code Cap. 154 and was sentenced by Artemides, D.J. to two months' imprisonment in relation to the assault count, to one month's imprisonment for the insult count and the disturbance count was taken into consideration in passing sentence. E. Efstathiou, for the appellant. A. M. Angelides, Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. TRIANTAFYLLIDESP. gave the followingjudgment of the Court. The appellant appeals.against the sentence of imprisonment 192 35 2 CX.R. Tbeodbroa<T..PoIice/7 Trtentafytlides P. passed upon him when he was found guilty, on his.own plea, of the offences of common"assault, contrary to section 242 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154, of-public insult, contrary>to section 99 of Cap. 154, and of disturbance, contrary to section 95 5 of Cap.
- He was sentenced to two months' imprisonment in relation to the assault, to one month's imprisonment for the insult, and the disturbance was taken into consideration in passing sentence. The offences were committed by the appellant during a rural 10 football match between two village teams, in one of which the appellant was a player. After he had been sent off by the referee, and after the referee had sent off two other players of the appellant's team, he entered the field and attacked the referee, with the result that part of his attire was torn, and, also, insulted 15 him by·using very vulgar language indeed. We agree with the learned trial judge that conduct of this nature, in circumstances such as those in which it has occurred, is very deplorable and condemnable and that the incident ought to beregarded as a serious one. Thosewho take part in football 20 matches, as well as the spectators, should exercise the utmost self-control and not allow themselves to be carried away by outbursts of temper or by fanaticism of any kind. How this Court approaches offences of this nature when they are committed at football matches is illustrated by the case of 25 Hapsides v. The Police,
(1969)2 C.L.R. 64, where a sentence of three weeks' imprisonment was imposed on a spectator for conduct much less serious than the conduct of the appellant in the present case. During the hearing of this appeal much stress was laid, as a 30 mitigating factor, on the personal circumstances of the appellant; so, we have now before us a social investigation report, which was not before the trial Court when it passed the sentence of two months' imprisonment. Had this report been available at the trial, and had it been taken into account then, we might 35 not have been inclined to intervene in favour of the appellant, because the sentence of two months' imprisonment would have been imposed with a full picture of all relevant considerations; and it must not be lost sight of, in this respect, that it is, primarily, the task of a trial Court to assess sentence, and it is not for 40 us to reassess it on appeal. 193 Triantafyllide P. Theodoroa r. Police
(1979)As, however, from the social investigation report, which was not before the trial Court, itappearsthat, indeed, the appellant, who is only twenty-two years old and the main supporter of a largefamily, has a perfectly good record as a citizen and isnot normallyofa violentnature,andhas,also,sincethecommission 5 of the offence in question expressed his repentance, having realized the gravity of his error, we are entertaining doubts whether the trial Court, had it had in mind the said report, would not have imposed a shorter sentence of imprisonment. So, with some reluctance—which in the case of one of uswent 10 as far as to make him consider whether to dissent from this judgment—we havedecided, eventually, that the safest courseis to reduce the sentence of the appellant to one of one month's imprisonment. The present appeal is, therefore, allowed accordingly. 15 Appeal allowed. 194