(1987)1985 May 14 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES Ρ PIKIS KOURRIS JJ) MICHALAKIS EFTYCHIOU CHARITOU, Appellant, ν THE REPUBLIC, Respondent (Cnmmal Appeal No 4630) Sentence — Causing malicious damage to a car — Incident due to a misunderstandingandlossofcontrolbyappellant, ayoung man 21years' ofage, who expressed hisregret, askedforforgiveness andcompensated the complainantmfull—Impnsonmentofone month—Notwrongm pnnciple but once the appellantreceived the tough lesson he needed thathe should 5 respect theproperty of others, no usefulpurpose willbe served by keeping htm mpnson formore than15days Thefactsof thiscasesufficientlyappearinthejudgment of the Court Appeal allowed Sentence reduced Cases referredto Yiannakou ν ThePolice
(1982)2 C LR 37, Nicolaouv TheRepublic
(1982)3C L R 156 Appeal against sentence. Appeal againstsentencebyMichalakis Eftychiou Chantou who 15 was convicted on the 7th May, 1985 at the Military Court of Limassol (CaseNo 61/85)on one countoftheoffenceofcausing malicious damage to a car contrary to section 321
(1)of the Criminal Code Cap 154 andsection 5 of the Military Cnminal Code and Procedure Law, 1964 and was sentenced to one 20 month's impnsonment G Sawides, forthe appellant Ρ huhanou, for the respondent 170 10 2 C.l-.R. Charitou v. Republic TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. gave the following judgment of the Court.The appellant hasbeen sentenced bytheMilitaryCourt to onemonth'simprisonment, asfrom 7May1985,fortheoffenceof causing malicious damage to the car of the complainant on 10 5 August
- The said offence wascommitted bythe appellant whilehe was still doing his military service and the damage to the car of the complainant wasassessed at£
- The salient facts ofthiscase are as follows: 10 Theappellant metwiththecomplainantat 1 a.m. on 10August 1984, inapublicstreetinLimassol,and theretookplace between them an altercation because the appellant was atthe time under the mistaken impression that the complainant, had by driving dangerously, overtaken with hiscarthecarofthe appellant. 15 The appellant unfortunately lost control of himself and picked up a stone and scratched the nearby stationary car of the complainant alongone of itssides, causingthus damage toit. The complainant reported the mattertothePolicetowhom the appellantmade aclean breastofwhathehaddone,expressed his 20 regret, asked to be forgivpn and he has, also, compensated fully the complainant forthedamage thathe causedtohiscar. Weareinclinedtotheviewthattheconductoftheappellantdid call for a sentence of imprisonment and, therefore, it was not wrong in principle to send the appellant to prison; and, in this 25 respect, wethinkthatthe caseof Yiannakou v. ThePolice,
(1982)2 C.L.R. 37, which was cited by counsel for the appellant in the course of argument today and in which only a sentence of a fine wasimposed for a similaroffence, isclearlydistinguishable on its own facts from the present case. 30 There ought, however, tobe taken intoaccount allthe already mentioned mitigating factors and, also, that the appellant is a young person only twenty-one years old, who had just been released from the ranksoftheNational Guardand thatheisa first offender. 35 Wethink what the appellant needed to be taught wasa lesson that he has to respect the property of others and should not take the law into his own hands. But once this was done no useful purpose will be served by keeping him in prison for more than 171 TrlantafyUldes P. Charitouv.Republic
(1987)fifteen days as from 7 May 1985. Itis correct that in the case of Nicolaou v. The Republic
(1982)3 C.L.R. 156, cited by counsel for the respondent, a sentence of imprisonment for four months which was imposed bytheMilitaryCourt for malicious damage to a car was upheld on appeal buteach case hastobedecided onits 5 own particular merits and the Nicolaou case differs substantially from the present case. Inthe light of all the foregoing we decided to allow this appeal and reduce the sentence of imprisonment that was passed upon theappellant from one month tofifteen days. 10 Appeal allowed. Sentence reduced tofifteen days. 172