(1986)1986 December 16 [A. L.OlZOU. MM.ACHTOS. DfcMETRlADES. JJ.j MOUSTAFA HASSAN NA21R, Appellant, v. THE REPUBLIC. Respondent. (Criminal Appeal No. 4790). Sentence—Attempt to kill contrary to section 214(a) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154'-—Incident a spontaneous reaction —Some provocation on behalf of complainant—Appellant suffering from serious psychological problems due to alcoholism-Sincere repentance—Four years' imprisonment —No room for interference with such sentence. 5 During- an altercation between the appellant and the complainant, the latter insulted, the appellant, who thereupon stabbed the complainant on the chest with a knife causing him two deep wounds. In the early hours of the 10 following, day the appellant gave himself up to the police, confessing his crime. In passing sentence, the Assize Court took into consideration as mitigating factors appellant's serious psychological problems from alcoholism, that there was some 15 provocation, and that the incident, in question was a spontaneous reaction due to appellant's psychological state. The appellant, expressed to the Court of Appeal his repentance, adding that he. had no reason to commit this offence against the complainant, who was- his friend. 20 Held, dismissing the appeal, that on the principles governing. interference with a sentence by this Court, there is no room for interfering- with the sentence in question. Appeal dismissed. 194 25 2 C.L.R. Nazir ν: Republic Appeal·against:sentence: 5 Appeal against sentence by; Moustat'a Hassan Nazir who was convicted on the 7th October, 1986 at the Assize Court, of Limassol (Criminal Case: No. 22887/86) on one- count, of the. offence of attempt to kill' contrary to section 214(a), of the Criminal. Code,. Cap;. 154 and was sentenced' by Hadjitsangaris,. P.D.C.,. Artemis,. S.DJ1.. and1- Hadjihambis,, D'X to four, years!" imprisonment:. Appellant! appeared' imperson·.. 10' R:, Gavrielides;. Senior' Counselfor; the respondent.. of the· Republic;, Α.. Lorzou J., gave the following; judgment of the. Court.. The· appellant was. founds guilty, on- his: ownt pleai of( a; charge, of! attempt,to1- kill! contrary- to· Section. 21'4(a)> o£ the1 15- Crimihali Code;. Cap:. 134V. The· appellant is 43· years of; age;, chair-maker by pro fession. H e comes, from. Instihjb village; of." the District of.' Paphos and' Hei has been: residing; ihe Limassol! since' 1983;. after he.came from; trier northipart.of. the* island'..The: conir 20! plainant,. Andreas Demetricur Metaxas,, a mason, thirty-nine years; of age,, comes from Paralimni;. is; married: but sepa rated' from1 his wife and!>resides alone: a t Limassol· ihv thesame; house" iir whichj the? appellant is; residing;" but·, in- a'. separate: room1.. Ihr the. evening of the- 3'r'st July/ L986; the:complainant: finished': his work anxfc went homefc>bed:. Later that night. 1 he- found! his room too: warnv and went and' slept. outside· in. the: garden.. When·, the appellant: returned' home: there: ensued' an* altercation! between, the' two- and:. apparently. 30· the· complainant uttered! insulting: words· against, the ap 1 1 pellant' who thereupon , stabbed: hihv· twice on: the- chest witfr a·,knife, causing. Him- two1 deepf stab-wounds:. He: was'. then^ taken: to*the; EimassoR Hospital? where^ lie: was; givem medical's treatment: and* fortunately/ His; life-- wass saved'.. 2.5- 35' In*ther early/ Hours; of·: the: 1st: August the: appellant gave' himself-' up? tot the; Police;, confessed* to 1 Raving-- committed' this, crime' and? handed* over to· therm the: knife. which» tie* hadi used- in* its; commissiorr:. 19* A. Loizou J Nezir ν Republic
(1986)In passing sentence the Assize Court took into consi deration the fact that the appellant suffers from serious psychological problems from alcoholism, that there was some provocation in the form of insults uttered by the complainant and that the whole incident was a spontane5 ous reaction due to the appellant's mental psychological state Tt stiessed, however, the seriousness of the offence which carries a maximum term of imprisonment for life and although it found that there was hardly any justification to put at such grave risk the life of anybody, it considered 10 that there were mitigating factors both m the circumstances of the offence and the personal mental condition of the appellant and imposed on him a sentence of four years imprisonment to run from the date of his arrest and re mand in custody 15 The appellant today has expressed his sincere repen tance and stated that he had no reason whatsoever to commit this offence against a friend of his as the com plainant was and he has claimed that the sentence imposed on him is manifestly excessive and should be reduced 20 We have given our best consideration to the totality of the circumstances of the case, including the nature and gravity of the offence, as well as the personal circum stances of the appellant. On the known, however, princi ples governing the interference by this Court on appeal with 25 the sentence imposed on an accused person, which is no doubt the primary responsibility of trial Courts, we have come to the conclusion that there is no room for us to interfere with a sentence in respect of which the Assize Court duly took into account all relevant mitigating factors. 30 Needless to say that this Court will not interfere with a sentence imposed merely because had it tried the case in the first instance itself it might have imposed a different sentence This Court only interferes if the sentence is manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate or wrong 35 m principle. For all the above reasons this appeal is dismissed Aρpeal dismisseu 196