clr/1979/1979_2_231.pdf

(1)of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap.

1. In dealing with the plea of guilty of the respondent to the offence of displaying an advertisement the Court made the following record: "Date: 25.8.79 For Prosecution: Mr. Photiou" Accused 1present. Accused 2 and 3 not served. Plea: Guilty on Count
2. Count 2 is withdrawn and dismissed. Court: For serviceon 3.9.
3. Factsexplained withregard to accused 1 as per the charge. Accused 1: I have nothing to say. 20 Court—Accused discharged because no material has been placed before me showing any seriousness of the offence". Upon appeal by theprosecution againstthe inadequacy of the sentenceof absolute discharge: Held,

(1)that the state of the record is so inadequate in the sensethat thereisno reasoning recorded for the Court's decision 231 Municipality N/sia v.Sawa

(1979)that this Courtfindsitselfquiteunabletoform anyviewastothe appropriate sentenceor asto thereasonswhich ledthe Court to discharge the accused absolutely; that the way this record was kept is in direct contravention of section 113

(1)of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155;that although it isopen to this Court 5 to remedy the defect by calling upon the trial Court to furnish further information under the provisions of section 146(a) of the Criminal Procedure Law, having given the matter its best consideration, this Court thinks that in the interests of justice the better course would be to allow this appeal and order that 10 the case be referred back to the District Court to be dealt with for thepurposes ofsentencebyanother Judge (see TheAttorneyGeneral v. Mavrommatis

(1967)2 CL.R. 190 and Panayi v. The Police

(1968)2 C.L.R. 124). Appeal allowed. 15 Per curiam: Wemight add that wedo not expect trial Judgesespecially when dealing with minor offences to keep overelaborate recordsofthe proceedingsbecause thiswould be unrealistic and a luxury which the volume of work 20 hardly allows, but Judges are expected to comply with the provisions of the law in force. Cases ^referred to: Attorney-General v. Mavrommatis

(1967)2 C.L.R. 190; Panayiv. Police

(1968)2 C.L.R.

1. 25 Appeal against sentence. Appeal by Nicosia Municipality against the inadequacy of the sentence imposed on Marios Sawa who was convicted on the 25th August, 1979 at the District Court of Nicosia (Criminal Case No. 17100/79) on one count of the oifence of displaying 30 an advertisement contrary to sections 4(b), 5 and 14 of the Display of Advertisements (Control) Law, Cap. 50 and was discharged absolutely by Artemides, D.J. K. Michaelides, for the appellant. Respondent in person states that he does not require the 35 assistance of Counsel. L. Loizou J. gave the followingjudgment of the Court. This is an appeal by the prosecutor, the Municipality of Nicosia, with the written sanction of the Attorney-General of the Republic, 232 2 C.L.R. Municipality N/sia v. Savra L. Lolzou J. against thesentenceimposed bytheDistrictCourt ofNicosiaon the accused—respondent in these proceedings—in Criminal Case No. 17100/
2. Theaccused and two other persons werecharged for offences 5 contrary to sections 4(b), 5and 14of the Display of Advertisements (Control) Law, Cap.
3. The penalty provided by this law for the offences charged is£125.—fine and to a furtherfine not exceeding £25.—for every day during which the contravention iscontinued after his conviction thereof, where applicable. '\Q The accused appeared before the Court on the 25th August, 1979,theothertwoaccused not havingbeenserved,andpleaded guilty to count 1 and thereupon a second alternative countwas withdrawn and he was acquitted and discharged on the second count. The record of the Court reads as follows:- 15 "Date: 25.8.79 For Prosecution: Mr. Photiou Accused 1present. Accused 2 and 3 not served. Plea: Guilty on Count
4. Count 2 is withdrawn and dismissed. 20 Court: For service on 3.9.
5. Facts explained with regard to accused 1 as per the charge. Accused 1: I have nothing to say. Court—Accused discharged because no material has been placed before me showing any seriousness of the offence." 25 The present appeal was filed on the 7th September, 1979, and the ground of the appeal is that "having regard tothe fact that the accused had pleaded guilty to the offence and in view of thefacts ofthecasethat wereput before the Court aswellas thefact that theillegal display ofadvertisements in Nicosiatook 30 extensivedimensions,thesentenceofabsolutedischargeimposed bytheCourt ontheaccusedismanifestlyinsufficient". Infact,the state of the record before us today is so inadequate in thesense that there isno reasoning recorded for the Court's decision that wefindourselvesquiteunableto form anyviewastotheappro35 priatesentenceorastothereasonswhichled theCourt todischargetheaccusedabsolutely. Wemight add that wedonot expect trialJudgesespeciallywhen dealingwith minor offences tokeep over-elaborate records of theproceedingsbecausethiswouldbe
6. L. Loizou J. Municipality N/sfa v.Sawa

(1979)unrealistic and a luxury which the volume ofwork hardly allows, but Judges are expected to comply with the provisions of the law in force. It seems to us that the way this record was kept is in direct contravention of section 113

(1)of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155. Although it is open to this Court 5 to remedy the defect by calling upon the trial Court to furnish further information under the provisions of section 146(a) of the Criminal Procecure Law, having given the matter our best consideration, we think that in the interests ofjustice the better course would be to allow this appeal and order that the case be 10 referred back to the District Court to be dealt with for the purposes of sentence by another Judge. This course was followed in the case of The Attorney-General v. Mavrommatis

(1967)2 C.L.R., 190. Relevant also is the case of Anastassis Panayi v. The Police

(1968)2 C.L.R., 124. 15 In the result this appeal is allowed, the sentence is set aside and the case is referred back to the District Court for sentence by another Judge. Appeal allowed. Sentence set aside. Case referred back to 20 District Court for sentence by another Judge. 234