1 C.L.R. 1982 November 20 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.] IN THE MATTER OF SOTERIS DEMETRIADES, AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF HABEAS CORPUS. (Application No. 16/82). 5 Sentenceof imprisonment—Computation—Period of detention prior tothepassing ofthesentence—Taken into accountfor thepurpose of reducing periodof sentence and not in orderto give to sich sentence retrospective effect—Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Lmv, Cap. 155(asamended by Law 2/75)—Reduction of sentence under s.\17tobecomputed whenprisoner was remanded in custody undersection 24 of Cap. 155. Remission of sentenceby Presidentof the Republic—Article 53.4of theConstitution. 10 15 20 25 The applicant, a convicted prisoner, applied for an order of habeas corpus on the ground that he was illegally detained. Counsel for applicant submitted that by virtueof section 117of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155, as amended by the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Law, 1975 (Law 2/75), the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant should becomputed as running from the date of his aires>t, which was, as has been alleged byhim, the 17th August, 1977; and that, therefoie, he was entitled to benefit from the remission of sentence granted by the President of the Republic on that date. Held, that onaconectconstruction ofsection 117of Cap. 155 a sentence of imprisonment should be legarded a; running as from thedateonwhich itwaspassed andanyperiod ofdetention of the convict concerned prior to that date is only taken into account foi the purpose of reducing the period of his sentence of imprisonment and not in order to give to such sentence retrospective effect; and that, therefoie, the applicant is not 855 In re Soteris Demetriades
(1982)entitled to an order of habeas corpus, even if it is assumed in his favour - without so deciding - that he was actually arrested on August 17, 1977. Held,further,
(1)that the reduction of the sentence under s.117 of Cap. 155 should be computed from the date when applicant was remanded in custody under s.24 of Cap. 155. 5
(2)That the remission of sentence granted by the President ofthe Republic onthe 17thAugust, 1977,wasintended to apply only tothose who weie already serving, at the time when it was 10 granted, sentences of imprisonment and not, also, to those who were at thetime either under arrest or remanded incustody and might subsequently be convicted and imprisoned (see, also, Article 53.4 of the Constitution). Application refused. 15 Application. Application by a convict for an order of habeas corpus on the contention that he is being illegally detained in prison as a convict. A. Eftychiou with G. Yiallouros, for the applicant. A. Evangelou, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Republic. 20 TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. gave the following judgment. The applicant in applying for an order of habeas corpus relies on the contention that he is being illegally detained in prison as a 25 convict. He alleges that the period of a sentence of imprisonment which was passed upon him on 6th October 1977has expired on 16th August 1982; and in support of this allegation his counsel has argued that the applicant, having earned remission for good 30 conduct and, also, having benefited from a partial remission of sentence which was granted by the President of the Republic on 28th February 1978, is entitled to benefit from another partial remission of sentence which was granted by the President of the Republic on 17th August 1977, with the result that he 35 ought to have been released on 16th August
- Counsel for the Republic has argued that (the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of the remission granted on 17th August
- 856 1 C.L.R. In re Soteris Demetriadcs Triantafyllides P. It isalleged bytheapplicant that hewasarrested, byvirtueof a judicial warrant, on 17th August 1977; on the other hand, counsel for the Republic has insisted that though the warrant for the arrest of the applicant was issued on 17th August 1977 5 it was executed only on 18th August
- It is, however, common ground that on 18th August 1977 the applicant was remanded in custody pending police investigations. Counsel for the applicant submitted that, byvirtue of section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155,as amended by 10 the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Law, 1975 (Law 2/75), thesentenceofimprisonment oftheapplicant should becomputed as runningfrom the date ofhisarrest, which is,ashasbeen alleged by him, the 17th August 1977; and that, therefore, he isentitled to benefit from the remission of sentence granted, as 15 aforesaid, by the President of the Republic on that date. I do not agree that the applicant in this case isentitled to an order of habeas corpus, even if it is assumed in his favour without so deciding - that he was actually arrested on 17th August
- My reasons for this view are as follows: 20 Onacorrectconstruction ofsection 117ofCap. 155asentence of imprisonment should be regarded as running as from the date on which it was passed and any period of detention of the convict concerned prior to that date is only taken into account for the purpose of reducing the period of his sentence of 25 imprisonment and not in order to give to such sentence retrospective effect. Any how, it was only on 18th August 1977that the applicant wasremanded in custody under section 24of Cap. 155and, so, it is only from that date that the reduction of the period of his 30 sentence under section 117, above, could be computed and not as from the 17th August 1977 when, according to his disputed allegation, the applicant was arrested. In any event, in my view, the remission of sentence granted bythePresident oftheRepublicon 17thAugust 1977ispatently 35 inapplicable to the applicant. It is absolutely clear from a fair reading of the relevant text, which is before me, that such remission was intended to apply only to those who were already 857 Triantafyllides P. In re Soteris Demetriades
(1982)serving,at the time when it wasgranted, sentences of imprisonment and not, also, to those who were at the time either under arrest or remanded in custody and might subsequently beconvicted and imprisoned. A contrary understanding of the effect of the remission of 5 sentence which was granted by the President of the Republic on 17th August 1977 would, also, be, in my opinion, incompatible with Article 53.4 of the Constitution, which empowers the President of the Republic to,inter alia,grant remission of a sentence already passed by a court and not of a sentence to be 10 passed in future upon a person who has been arrested or has been remanded in custody. On the basis of all the foregoing this application fails and it should be dismissed. Applicationdismissed. \5 858