clr/1984/1984_2_463.pdf

(1984)in mind that the appellant acted in a systematic manner for over a year and that the maximum sentence provided by law .or both offences is imprisonment for life; and that, therefore, thesentenceimposedbytheAss:seCourtcould not beconsidered as manifestly excessive or that the mental state of the appellant was not given the proper weight by it; and that, accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed. 5 lldd, further, that it would be wrong to assume that in cases like the present one there is room for this Court to say that whatever the sentence imposed on an accused person who is 10 mentally affected should be further reduced; that this Court hasto look atthetotality ofthecircumstancesand see,irrespective of whatever its own attitude would have been had it been sitting as a trial Court, if the sentence imposed comes within the appropriate boundaries of not being manifestly excessive 15 or manifestly inadequate and if it doesnot exceed those limits, it should not and will not interfere. Appeal dismissed. Appeal against sentence. Appeal against sentence by Polis K. Michaeiides who was 20 convicted on the 8th October, 1984 at the Assize Court of Limassol (Criminal Case No, 14741/84) on one count of the offence of forgery contrary to sections 331, 333(d)(i) and 336 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154and on one count of the offence of uttering a false document contrary to sections 339and 336 25 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154 and was sentenced by Hadjitsangaris, P.D.C., Artemis, S.D.J, and Stavrinides, D.J. to concurrent terms of imprisonment of two years on each count. 5/. Kittis, for the appellant. A.M. Angelides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the 30 respondents. A. Loizou J. gave the following judgment of the Court. The appellant was sentenced to two years*imprisonment on two counts:

(1)Of forgery, contrary to sections 331, 333(dXi) and 336, 35 of the Criminal Code, and 464 2 GL.lt. Michaeiides v. Republic A. Loizou J.

(2)Uttering a false document, contrary to sections 339 and 336 of the Criminal Code. The particulars of the offences as regards the first count were that the accused betweon the 25th July. 1983 and the 1st of 5 August, 1983,at Pelendri, inthe District of Linvissol, with intent to deceive did forge a postal draft No. E. 87335, issued by the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance to one Theodora Charalambous for the sum of C£47.660 mils by signing in the name of the saidTheodora Charalambouswithout her authority 10 and as regards the second count thathedid knowingly and fraudulently utter the said forged postai draft. The appellant who was represented by counsel at his trial, pleaded guilty to these two offences that carry a maximum term of imprisonment for life and asked eleven other cases, containing 15 outstanding offences of forgery of postal drafts, which he admitted to have committed, to be taken into consideration by the Assize Court in passing sentence upon lum on the offence in respect of which he had pleaded guilty. The posuil drafts in question belonged to various recipients 20 from the Social Insurance Fund and with the exception of two which belonged to the same person, all of them belonged to different ones and their forgery spread over a period of about a year. There had been obviously in his conduct a system of operation and systematic disregard of the law. 25 The appellant, a resident of Pelentri village, is 45 years of age, married with three children. His employment at Amiantos mines was terminated and he Itad been unemployed for the last two years. He was somehow keeping himself busy at the Cafeteria of his brother in Liraassol. Before his present 30 marriage he was engaged to be married in 1967 when he had a motorcar accident as a result of which he was slightly injured but a fortnight later signs of indisposition and melancholy were observed. He was treated by a psychiatrist but on account of his condition his fiancee left him. He then got employment 35 as a messanger with a Bank and in 1970 he was involved in another accident whilst riding a motorcycle. As a result thereof he suffered a fracture of the right femur and there followed a severe and protracted mental illness, which had left him with a physical incapacity which in conjunction with his intellectual 465 Λ. Loizou J. Michaeiides v. Republic

(1984)state and his personality handicaps had been interfering with his capacity to work and provide adequately for his family. This state of affairs, according to Dr. Kyriakides, a specialist psychiatrist, has created in Mm an abnormal psychological state with feelings of bitterness and dejection. 5 The Assize Court had before it a social investigation report regarding the personal circumstances of the appellant as well as the medical report of Dr. Kyriakides, regarding his mental state and which after stating his condition concludes by saying that "it becomes quite apparent from the aforesaid that Mr. 10 Michaelidej> is in need of moral support and of a persistent and friendly prompting in the framework of an understanding society to adjust himself to the realities surrounding his personal and family life and to face them in a healthy and socially accepted way". 15 The Assize Court from the aforesaid material concluded that the appellant was a person with reduced sense of responsi­ bility and who had many psychosomatic problems and as a result he faced financial and family problems. In passing sentence the Assize Court stressed that it took 20 into consideration the personal circumstances of the appellant, his immediate admission to the offence, his cc-operation with the Police for the investigation of all the offences but at the same time indicated that it could not ignore the seriousness of the offence and the consequences which his actions had on 25 the victims of his crime. Indeed his victims appeared to be poor people, some of them old pensioners, apparently in need of the pensions which they were receiving and to which they were entitled having been contributors to the Social Insurance Scheme over a life time. 30 Learned counsel for the appellant stressed to the Court that his whole case for alleging that the sentence imposed on Ids client was manifestly excessive turned on the mental state of the appellant, which though mentioned by the Assize Court to have been taken into consideration, was not given the proper 35 weight and was not duly taken into consideration. It is true that the mental state of an accused person at the time of the commission of an offence is a material mitigating 466 2 C.L.R. 5 Michaeiides v. Republic Λ. Loizou J. factor and this appears to have been duly born in mind by the Assize Court. The sentence imposed was·obviously a lenient one, if one bears in mindthat the appellant acted in a systematic manner for over a year and that themaximum sentence provided by law for both offences is-imprisonment for life, in fact, we would have expected a much longer term of imprisonment for a normal offender. We have no hesitation inconcluding thatthe sentence imposed. by the Assize Court could not be- considered as' manifestly 10 excessive or that the mental state of the appellant was not given. the proper weight by it. It would' be wrong to assume that in. cases like the present one there is room for this Court to say that whatever the sentence imposed on an accused person who is mentally affected should be further reduced'. This Court 15 has to look at the totality of the circumstances and see, irrespe­ ctive of whatever its own attitude would have been had.it been sitting as a trial Court, if the sentence- imposed comes within the appropriate boundaries of not being manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate and if it does not exceed 20 those limits, >tshould not and' will,not interfere. For all the above reasons the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.. 467 I