2 C.L.R 1985 May 27 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES Ρ PIKIS KOURRlS JJ 1 S1DERISGEORGHIOU ISfDOROU, Appellant, ν T H E REPUBLIC, Respondent (Criminal Appeal No 4623) Sentence — Failure to enlist in theNational Guard — Appellant, a *Jehovah witness* serving an earliersentenceof 4 months' impnsonment for a similar oifen^e —Nine months impnsonment — Upheld 5 The appellant committed the offence in question, because he is a «Jehovah s witness»andin view of this he insists that he isconscience bound not to do military service It must be notedthatatthe timeofthe passingoftheaforesaidsentencethe appellant was serving four months impnsonment for asimilar offence 10 Held dismissing theappeal against sentence Pitsilltdes ν The Republic
(1983)2C L R 374 dispelled anydoubts about the constitutionality ofthe enforcement of compulsoiv military service inacase such asthis one
(2)Inthe circumstances itisnot possible to interferewith the sentence Appealdismissed Cases referredto 15 Louidesv The Republic
(1983)2C L R 140 Pttsilhdfiv TheRepublic
(1983)2C L R 374 Appeal against sentence. Appeal against sentence by Stdens Georghiou Isidorou w h o wab convicted on the 2 2 n d February 1985 at the Military Court of 20 Nicosia (Case No 10/85) on one count of the offence of failing to enlist for service in the National Guard contrary to section 22(a) of the National Guard Law, 1964 (Law N o 20 of 1964) and was sentenced to nine months' impnsonment 167 Isidorou v.Republic
(1987)Appellant appeared in person. P.Ioulianou, for the respondent. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. gave the following judgment of the Court. The appellant has appealed against the sentence of nine months' imprisonment, as from 22 February 1985, that was 5 passed uponhimfortheoffence offailingtoenlistforserviceinthe National Guard asa reservist. The appellant committed the offence inquestion because he is a «Jehovah's witness» and in view of this he insists that he is conscience-bound not todo militaryservice. We have heard today submissions regarding the personal and family circumstances of theappellantand wehavebeen asked,in viewofsuchcircumstances,toholdthatthesentencepassed upon himismanifestly excessive. On the other hand there remains the stark fact that at the time 15 when the appellant was sentenced on this occasion to nine months' imprisonment he was in prison serving an earlier sentence of four months' imprisonment, asfrom 7January 1985, for a similaroffence and yethe has not even tillnow made up his mind to undertake that he is going to fulfil his obligations as a 20 reservist intheNational Guard. Bythe case-law of thisCourt there hasalready been dealt with extensivelytheproperapproach toacasesuchasthepresent one from thepointof viewof theassessment ofsentence.Thus,in,for example, Loizides v. The Republic
(1983)2 C.L.R. 140, it has .25 been held thata sentence oftwelve months' imprisonment for an offence ofthisnature isnotexcessive. Also, by Pitsittides v. The Republic
(1983)2 C.L.R. 374, there were dispelled any doubts about the constitutionality of the enforcement of compulsory,militaryservice ina case such asthis 30 one. In the light of all the foregoing we have to hold that it is not possible to intervene in favour of the appellant by reducing the sentence that was passed upon him and, therefore, this appeal cannot succeed. Inconcludingwe would liketoobserve that inasmuch as ithas notbeen ordainedbytheMiHtaiyCourtthatthe sentence against which the present appeal has been made will run as from the 168 10 2 C.L.R. Isidorou v.Republic Triantafyllides P. expiry of the sentences of four months' imprisonment which was passedearlierupontheappellantitfollowsthatsuchsentence and the present one will run concurrently, with the result that the appellantwillbedischargedassoonashehasservedthe sentence 5 of ninemonths' imprisonment asfrom 22 February 1985. Inthe resultthisappeal failsand itisdismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed. 169