2C.L.R. 1987 September 18 (TR1ANTAFYLUDES Ρ UEMETR'ADES, LORIS,JJ ] ONERARIFAKKARKILI, Appellant, ν THEREPUBLIC, Respondent (Cnmtnal Appeal No 5 4875) Sentence — Housebreaking and the Theftcontraryto sectons 291, 292 (a)and 255 of the Criminal Code Cap 154 — Stolen monies and jewellery exceeding in value £5,000 — Nothing recovered — Appellantaged24 — Cleanrecord— 3 1/2years' impnsonment — Neither manifestlyexcessive norwrong m principle The tnalCourt,having taken intoconsideration 5 outstandingoffences of similar nature,imposedfor theoffence ofHousebreakingandtheft asentence ot3 1/2years'imprisonment 10 Hence thisappealagainst sentence Theappellant,whois24 years of age, was arrested by the Police on31 3 87 Heinitially denied any knowledge of theoffence inquestion On23 4 87,however, hemadeavoluntarystatement confessing itscommission Insupport of appellant's case hiscounsel invoked hisage, hiscleanrecord and his repentanceallegedly indicatedby theaforesaid voluntary statement 15 it m ust be noted that the monies and jewellery stolen exceed in value £5,000, nothingwas recovered Held dismissing the appeal, that in the circumstances the sentence in question isneithermanifestly excessivenorwrong inpnnciple Appealdismissed 20 Casesreferredto Nicolaouν TheRepublic
(1985)2C LR 55 125 Akkarkill v.Republic
(1987)Appeal againstsentence. Appeal against sentence by Oner Arif Akkarkili who was convicted on the 11th May, 1987 at the Assize Court of Nicosia (Criminal Case No. 12957/87) on one count of the offence of housebreaking and theft contrarytosections291, 292(a)and 255 5 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154and was sentenced by Boyadjis, P.D.C., HadjiConstantinou, S.D.J, and Nicolaides D.J. to 3 1/2 years' imprisonment. P.Angelides, forthe appellant. M. Florentzos, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the 10 respondent. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P.: The Judgment of the Court will be delivered byLoris J. LORISJ.:Thepresentappealisdirectedagainstthesentenceof 3 1/2 years'imprisonment imposed ontheappellantbytheAssize 15 Court of Nicosia, on the 11th May 1987, for the offence of housebreaking and theft contrary to the provisions of sections 291,292(a) and 255 of the Criminal Code Cap.
- In passing sentence the Assize Court took into consideration another 5 outstanding offences of similar nature to which the 20 appellant had pleaded guilty. The appellant, 24 years of age, is a Turkish Cypriot bom at Pitargou village,Paphos District;when about 11yearsofage, after theTurkish invasion ofCyprus,followed hisparentstotheTurkish occupied area of Cyprus;he returned therefrom toNicosiawhere 25 heworked foraperiod ofabouttwoyears(1980-1982); thereafter he returned to the Turkish occupied area again, where he stayed up to 25.12.
- As the appellant stated in his statement to the Police, after obtaining a divorce from his Turkish-Cypriot wife he decided to 30 leavetheTurkishoccupied area ofCyprusandaccompanied bya friend ofhis,namelySoyer, entered through Louroujina village to the free area of the Republic on the night of 25.12.
- From that night onwards and within the next 36 hours, he committedatnighttime6housebreakings,stealingfromthehouses 35 broken into cash,jewellery and several other articlesvalued over £5,000 which were never recovered. 126 2 C.L.R. 5 AkkarkHl v. Republic Lotis J . Theappellantwasarrested bythePoliceatNicosia,on31.3.87On arrest he denied any knowledge of the offences in question. When interrogated by the Police whilst in custody on 2.4.87 he met the charges against him with a denial. Hisplea to the formal chargeon 7.4.87 was«notguilty».Itwasonlyaslateasthe23.4.87 when he made a voluntary statement confessing the offences in question. The appellant obviously in order to mitigate the gravity of his position alleged that the brain behind all the breakings was his 10 friend Soyer and that hisrole wasa minor one.The Assize Court without rejecting appellant's allegation that Soyer might have been the brain for the breakings, rightly held that the role played by.the appellant wasa substantial one, inparticular inviewof his fingerprints being detected in all but one of the houses broken 15 into. Counsel appearing for the appellant pleaded inter alia in mitigationtheageoftheappellant,hiscleanrecord,hisrepentance allegedly indicated by his voluntary statement to the Police in which he had made a clean breast, and after elaborating on the 20 principles of sentencing forcefully argued that the sentence is manifestly excessive. Having carefully gone through the record and having carefully heard what the learned counsel for the appellant had to say, we found itunnecessary tocall on the other side. 25 Itisobvious from thejudgment oftheAssizeCourt thatwithout overlooking the reformatory character of punishment they were more concerned with the protection of the community. They referred inpassingsentence toNicolaou v.TheRepublic
(1985)2 C.L.R. 55 where we upheld on appeal a sentence of threeyears' 30 imprisonment on a young soldier aged 19servinginthe National Guard for several shop-breakings andthefts which fetched tohim monies and valuables amounting to £2,170 out of which more than halfwererecovered. Inthepresentappealtheappellantis24 years ofage, he isan electrician and monies and jewellery stolen 35 exceed thevalue of£5,000.-; nothing was recovered. Deliveringthejudgment ofthe Court ofAppealintheNicolaou case (supra)and layingstresstothe«protectionofthe community» Iconcluded with the following which Ifeel that must be repeated in the present appeal: «Andthisend can only be achieved by the 127 LorisJ. Akkarirfli v.Republic
(1987)enforcement oftheLaw,such enforcement fallingsquarely on the shoulders of the Courts who must not flinch in discharging such duty.» With the above in mind we hold the view that the sentence imposed by the Assize Court is neither manifestly excessive nor 5 wrong in principle. The present appeal therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. 128