(1982)1982 April 12 [A. Loizou, SAWIDES, STYLIANIDES, JJ.J MICHALAKIS ANGELODEMOU, Appellant, v. THE POLICE, Respondents. {Criminal AppealNo. 4299). Criminal Law—Sentence—Obtaining money by false pretences— Nine months' imprisonment—Appellant's bad criminalrecord with a similar previous conviction and six previousconvictionsfor stealing—Hasfailedtotake advantage of lenient treatment affordedto him in the past—Appellant withcharacteristics 5 « of recidivism has toface consequences of his acts andsociety has to be protected—Though price for his conduct paid by his wifeandchildren no roomfor leniency—Appealdismissed. Theappellantpleaded guiltytotheoffence of obtainingmoney by false pretences and was sentenced to ninemonths'imprison- 10 ment. The offence in question was committed when the appellant presented himself as an employee of a firm of importers of motor-cycles and received £40.—as down payment from the complainant, a man of 70yearsage,in order to secure a motorcycle for him. The appellant was27yearsof age, married with {5 two children and he had a similar previous conviction and 6 previous convictions for stealing for which he received sentences of fine, probation and imprisonment and suspended sentence of imprisonment. Upon appeal against sentence; Held,that though the persons that primarily pay the price for the appellant's antisocial conduct are his wife and children there are times when the limits of leniency are exhausted; that thegravity ofthe offence, includingthecircumstances surround42 20 2 C.L.R. 5 10 Angelodemou v. Police ing its commission, particularly the fact that a man of his age took advantageofthetrust placedinhimbyanoldpoorlabourer . and'thecircumstances oftheappellant, includinghispast record, leave no room for leniency; that though the sentences which were imposed on the appellant by the Courts in the past were indicative of their desire to give him a further chance they have failed in their aim and the appellant with these characteristics ofrecidivism hastoface theconsequences ofhisactsand society has to be protected from his mischiefs; accordingly the appeal should be dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Appeal against sentence. Appeal against sentence by Michalakis Angelodemou who was convicted on the 16th February, 1982 at the District Court 15 of Nicosia (Criminal Case No. 11515/81) on one count of the offence of obtaining money by false pretences, contrary to section 298 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154 and was sentenced by S. Nicolaides D.J. to nine months' imprisonment. Appellant appeared in person. 20 A. M. Angetides. Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. A. Loizou J. gave the following judgment of the Court. Thisisanappeal against a sentence ofninemonths imprisonment for obtaining money by false pretences contrary to section 298 25 of the Criminal Code. The appeal was filed by the appellant in person and the ground relied upon is that the sentence is excessive. The appellant a labourer, employed at the Government Grain Stores in Nicosia, is 27 years of age, married with two children, 30 one aged five and the other two. During the second half of January 1981 he met the complainant, an attendant at the public conveniences of the Municipality of Nicosia, a man of 70 years of age, who expressed the wish to buy a motor-cycle. The appellant presented himself as being employed by the firm of 35 Pieridej, importers of such motor-cycles, that he could secure for him one at the price of a hundred pounds and persuaded the complainant to give him £40.- as down-payment. A week 43 Λ. Loizou J . Angelodemou v. Police
(1982)passed and when they met again the appellant told the complai nant that he had in fact obtained the motor-cycle, but that it was at Ayios Dhometios and that he would deliver same to him later. After the appellant made several excuses for the nondeli very of the motor-cycle the complainant on the 12th March 1981, reported the matter to the Police. The appellant was then arrested and admitted the offence. 5 The criminal record of the appellant started in 1975 when he was placed on probation for two years, for shopbreaking and theft contrary to sections 294(
- a)and 295 of the Criminal 10 Code, when five other similar offences were taken into consi deration. In 1977 he was sentenced to two months imprison ment for stealing from a dwelling house contrary to section 255 and for stealing contrary to section 266(
- b)of the Code. Whilst serving in the National Guard he was sentenced to six months 15 imprisonment for desertion when a number of other offences, including obtaining money by false pretences were taken into consideration. Five months later he was once more sent to prison for two. months for stealing, to be followed by further imprisonment for desertion, whilst three other offences were 20 taken into consideration by the Military Court. Again in 1977 for stealing he was fined £ 5 - and bound over for three years to come up for judgment. In September 1978 again for stealing he was sentenced to six months imprisonment but the sentence was suspended for three years; five similar offences 25 were taken into consideration, whilst for two other similar offences he was given suspended sentence of six months imprison ment once more. in May 1979 for obtaining money by false pretences, he was sentenced to nine months imprisonment but the sentence wai 30 once more suspended, and five similar offences were taken into consideration; all these sentences imposed were to run concur rently. On the 10th March 1980, for stealing by agent, contrary to sections 255 and 270(
- b)of the Code he was cautioned and discharged and ordered to pay £14.800 mils to the complainant 35 in that case. The Welfare Officer's report produced at the trial refers to his family background and to his present situation within his family and at work, and describes the appellant as having full knowledge of the seriousness and consequences of his 44 40 2 C.L.R. Angelodemou *. Police A. Loizou J. antisocial behaviour and as not being always able to control himself, his tendency for such behavioui being greater when he has no steady employment and he needs money. We have heard the appellant addressing us in this case, having 5 declined legal aid, and giving us assurances about his repentance and pleading that if he was given a chance he would try his best not to come before the Court again and further praying for leniency for the sake of his family. No doubt the persons that primarily pay the price for the 10 appellant's antisocial conduct are his wife and children but there are times when the limits of leniency are exhausted. The gravity of the offence, including the circumstances surrounding its commission, particularly the fact that a man of his age took advantage of the trust placed in him by an old poor labourer 15 and the circumstances of the appellant, including his past record, leave no room for leniency. As it may reasonably be inferred from the treatment he received at times, the Court in the past must have taken him up on his assurances on several occasions and must have paid due regard to the consequences 20 that imprisonment entailed for his wife and minor children, and imposed suspended sentences which were indicative of their desire to give him a further chance. Obviously they have failed intheir aim and the appellant with these characteristics of recidivism has to face the consequences of his acts and society 25 has to be protected from his mischiefs. , We are' of the view that the sentence imposed on the appellant is, if anything, on the lenient side. Weshare, however, the belief ofthe learned trial Judge that the appellant will benefit from the services of psychiatrists and social workers which may be rendered to him 30 whilst serving his sentence. For all the above reasons this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. 45