1984 May 23 [TRIANTAFYLLIIJES, P., LORIS. PIKIS, JJ.] SOTERIS ANTON! DEMETRIOU, Appellant, v.. THE REPUBLIC, Respondents. (Criminal Appeal No. 4503). Criminal Law—Sentence—Mental state of appellant afactor relevant to .sentence—Appellant a person of psychopathic personality— In the absence of information on appellant's mental state trial Court could not properly appreciate the culpability of appellant and they failed to individualise sentence in a manner befitting hisperson—This taskperformed by Courtof Appeal after obtaining a report from a mental specialist—Sentence of fifteen months* imprisonment for using violence against a superior in the army, contrary to section 53
(1)of the Criminal Military Code and Procedure Law, 1964, reduced to nine months'1 imprisonment. The appellant, a twenly-year old National Guardsman, was - sentenced by the Military Court-to fifteen months' imprisonment on a charge of using violence against a superior in the army, contrary to s.53(l) of the Criminal Military Code and Procedure Law; and was,also,sentenced to a concurrent term of six months imprisonment for insulting a superior, committed in the context of the same incident of insubordination. Two cases of desertion were taken' into consideration in -passing sentence upon the appellant. Upon appeal against sentence Counsel for the appellant raised the issue of the mental state of the appellant as a factor bearing on his sense of responsibility; and as the appellant showed evident • signs of neurosis tending to support the submission of mental instability, in order to have a proper picture of the mental state of the appellant, the Court of appeal sought a report from 323 Demetriou v. Republic
(1984)a mental specialist which certified th:it J e was a person of psychopathic personality, seriously afflicted in t'<at regard. Held,that the mental state of the appellant is a factor relevant to the determination of sentence; that the relevance of mental affliction in the sentencing process lios primarily in the information it supplies aboxit the clement of culpability in the conduct of the accused; that if it points to diminished responsibility for reasons beyond the control of t!-c accused, it constitutes a factor that can legitimately be taken into account as mitigating the gravity ofthecrime committed bythe accused; that intin; absence of the aforementioned information on the mental state of the appellant, the Military Court could not properly appreciate the culpability of the appellant a:irt. in tiiat way. failed to individualise sentence in a manner befitting his person; that this task has been performed by this Court and having done so. it decided that the appropriate sentence is nine months imprisonment; accordingly the appeal must bo allowed. Appiai allowed. Cases referred to: Costa v. Republic
(1966)2 C.L.R.. 87: Chrysafis v. Republic
(1967)2 C.L.R. 310; Pantclis v. Republic
(1969)2 C.L.R. 92; Georghiou v. Republic
(1975)12 J.S.C. 2063. Appeal against sentence. Appeal against sentence by Soteris Anloni Demetriou who was convicted on the 20th February, 1984 by the Militaiy Court sitting at Nicosia (Case No. 659/83)on one count of the offence of using violence against a superior contrary to section 53
(1)of the Military Criminal Code and Procedure Law, 1964 and on one count of insulting a superioi contrary to section 52
(1)ofthe above law and was sentenced to 15months' imprisonment on the first count and six months' imprisonment on the second count, the sentences to run concurrently. A. Pandelides, for the appellant. St. Tamasios,. for the respondents. ?24 2 C.1.R. Demetriou v. Republic TRIANTAFYLLIDCS P.: Mr. Justice Pikis will deliver the judg- ment of the Court. PIKIS J.; The appellant, a twenty-year old National Guardsman, was sentenced by the Military Court to fifteen months' 5 imprisonment on a charge of using violence against a superior in the army» contrary to s.53(l) of the Criminal Military Code and Procedure Law. Also, he was sentenced to a concurrent term of six months'imprisonment for insulting a superior, committed in the context of the same incident of insubordination. Ic Two cases of desertion were taken into consideiation in passing sentence upon the appellant. Undoubtedly, the offences were serious, like every offence, undermining discipline in the army, the sustainance of which is vital for the efficacy of the National Guard. No suggestion 15 has been made that the sentence of fifteen months' imprisonment is wrong in principle. And.none such suggestion could beentertained in face of the gravity of the conduct ofthe appellant, derogatory of discipline in the army.' "Nevertheless, we decided to reduce the sentence for reasons peculiarly associated 20 with the mental state of the appellant, a matter that was not properly ventilated before the Military Court. Counsel for the appellant raised the issue of the mental state of the appellant in arguing the appeal befoic us and, submitted that his mental state should concern the Court as a factor bear25 ing on his sense of responsibility. We noticed that appellant showed evident signs of neurosis, tending lo support .the submission of mental instability. In order to have a pioper picture of his mental state, we sought a report from a mental specialist before proceeding further in the matter. 30 On theadjurned hearing, a report of Dr. Malekidcs, a specialist psychiatrist, was produced before us. The report confirmed our apprehensions about appellant's mental state," certifying he is a person of psychopathic personality, seriously afflicted in that regard. Primarily, it stems from inability to adjust to 35 his environment, a derangement explaining in part the unreasonable reaction of the appellant to hisarmy surroundings and his proneness to insubordination. The mental state of the appellant is not a recent development but one that has bedevilled him foi years, producing social 325 Pikis .1. Demetriou v. Republic
(1984)mal-adjustment. It certainly troubled him at the time of the commission ofthe offence and,as such, upon accepted principles. constituted a factor relevant to the determination of sentence (see, inter alia, Andreas Foka Costa v. The Republic
(1966)2 C.L.R. 87; Christos Chrysostomou Chrysafis v. The Republic 5
(1967)2 C.L.R. 310; Adamos Pantelis v. The Republic
(1969)2 C.L.R. 92; Georghiouv. The Republic
(1975)12J.S.C. 2063). The trial Court did not have before it a proper account of his mental state, consequently, it could not attach to this factor the weight it merited as a determinant of sentence. 10 Faced with this reality, weexamined whether the sentence was calculated, apart from marking the gravity of the offence, to fit the person of the appellant as well. The relevance of mental affliction in the sentencing process lies primarily in the information it supplies about the clement of culpability in the 15 conduct of the accused. And if it points to diminished responsibility for reasons beyond the control of the accused, it constitutes a factor that can legitimately be taken into account as mitigating the gravity of thecrime committed bythe accused. In the absence of the aforementioned infoimation on the mental state of the appellant, the Military Court could not properly appreciate the culpability of the appellant and, in that way, failed to individualise sentence in a manner befitting his person. This task we have performed ourselves and, having done so, we decided the appiopriate sentence is nine months" imprisonment. It is advisable, as Dr. Malekides recommends, that appellant should be medically examined the soonest, to test his fitness for service in the National Guard. Such examination should take place as early as possible, while appellant is at the Central Prinsons. 20 2D 30 In the result, the appeal against sentence is allowed. Sentence on count 1 is reduced to nine months' imprisonment. The sentence of six months* imprisonment, on conviction for insulting a superior, should run concurrently with Che above. Appeal allowed. 35 Sentence reduced. 326