(1987)1987 December4 [A LOIZOU. LOWS, STVUANIDES, JJ ] E D M O N D MAJID A O U N , Appellant, ν THE REPUBLIC, Respondent (Criminal Appeal No 4839) Sentence — Possessing narcotic drugs (1069 grams of heroin), contrary to sections 2, 3, 6
(1)
(2),30 and 31 of the Narcotic Drugsand Psychotropic Substances Law, 1977, as amended and possessing the saidheroin with intent to supply itto otherpersons,contrarytosections2,3, 6{1)
(3), 30 and 31 ofthesaidlaw—Appellant, aLebanese man 64years oldsuffenng from osteoarthnus andprostatehypertrophy — Fouryears' tmpnsonment on the second count,no sentence on the firstcount—Sentence upheld Theappellant, aLebanese 64 years old,was convicted uponhisown plea for the aforementioned offences and,as a result, he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment on thesecond count,whilst nosentence was passed as regards thefirstcount 5 10 Counsel for theappellant confined htsaddress tothequestion ofthehealth of the appellant, who was found to suffer from osteoarthritis and prostate hypertrophy Held, dismissingthe appeal Inanothercase brought before thisCourtto- I S day thesentenceforpossessingundersimilarcircumstanceslessthanhalf the quantity of heroin, which this appellant possessed, was one of 4 years' imprisonment Thisshows thatby analogy this appellant was given amuch lesser sentence It follows that considerable leniency was extended to this appellantduetohisage andpersona!circumstances 20 Appealdismissed Casesreferredto El-Etnν Repubbc
(1985)2 CLR 40 Appeal againstsentence. Appeal against sentence by Edmond Majid Aoun who was 25 convicted on the 28th January, 1987 at the Assize Court of 208 2 C.L.R. Aoun v. Republic Lamaca (Criminal Case No 1/87) on one countof the offence of possessing controlled drugs contrary to section 2, 3, 6
(1)
(2), 30 and 31 of the NarcoticDrugs and Psychotropic Substances Law 1977 (Law No 29/77) and on one count of the offence of 5 possessing controlled drug with intent to supply it to others contrary tosections 2,3,6{1)
(3)30 and31 of theabove Law and was sentenced by Papadopoulos Ρ DC Constantinides S D J and Ehades,DJ tofour years' impnsonmentonthesecondcount with nosentence being passed on thefirstcount 10 A Paschahdes, for the appellant A Μ Angehdes, Senior Counsel of the Republic for the respondent A LOIZOU J gave the following judgment of the Court The appellant was sentenced by the Lamaca Assize Court on two 15 counts The first one was for possession of a controlled drug of Class A of Part 1 of the First Schedule, namely 1069 grams o* Diamorphine, generally known as heroin contrary to sectiors J 3, 6
(1){2), 30 and 31 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotr ic Substances Law, 1977 (Law No 29 of 1977) as amended by .? 20 No 67 of 1983, without apermitfrom the Ministerof Health second one was for possession of the said controlled drug r h intent tosupply itto otherpersons contrary tosections 2, 3 t. 1),
(3),30 and31 of thesaid Law He was sentenced to four years impnsonment on the c >nd 25 count,butnosentencewas passed onthefirst count as itw<b ,»ld by theAssizeCourttobe covered by thesecond count The circumstances under which the appellant was found to be in possession of thesaid contioued drug are extensively set outin the judgment of the Assize Cou-t on the basis of the evidence 30 adducedattheheanngof thecase andasac*.eptedby itinthelight of the credibility of thewitnesses Itis sufficient however for the purposes of this appeal against sentence - the appeal against conviction having been witf di?wn η refer to them bnefly The appellant who is d Lebanese rational is sixty-four years of 35 age, educated and a journalist by profession He was one of the passengers on board the slvp «Sunny Boat» which arrived at Lamaca Portinthe morning of the28th December 1986 It was his intention to depart by air later the same day from Cyprus for Cleveland inthe U S A as his ultimate destination At 209 A. LolzouJ. Αοαηv.Republic
(1987)the Customs Control he was asked to open his suitcases. The appellantplaced onthebenchoneof themwhich was openedand in which there were some personal effects. The Customs officer further asked the appellant to place on the bench and open the second suitcase he was carrying and on being opened he noticed 5 that the walls of the suitcase were becoming thickertowards the lower part. The witness pierced the said part of the wall of the suitcase and noticed a white powder coming out which he suspected ittobe a kindofa narcoticdrug. Uponthathecalled his superior and informed the appellant thatthey were going to tear 10 apartthatside of thesuitcase whereupon theappellantpulledand tore the lining of the side of the suitcase and indicated thatthere was nothing there. The Customs Officer however, noticed that there were double-walls and when with the help of a knife they opened them he discovered four bags with white powder which 15 was laterfound tobe theheroin,subject matterof the charge. TheAssizeCourtinimposingsentencereferred tothejudgment of thisCourtinEl-Etriand Othersv.TheRepublic
(1985)2 C.L.R. 40 where the seriousness of offences of this nature was stressed and took into account inter alia the age of the appellant as a 20 mitigating factor. Learnedcounsel appearing forhimto-day,confined his address tothequestion ofthehealthoftheappellantwhowas foundbythe Prisons' Medical officer to suffer from osteoarthritis and prostate hypertrophy, which he must have had for some time.As regards 25 his prostate problem he has been placed on the waiting list for operation at the Urological Department of the Nicosia General Hospital. The remaining condition of his health is good with his heart, the vascular, the breathing and digestive systems being normal. 30 We had several appeals before us to-day against the sentence imposed on charges relating tonarcoticsand we have noticed,to mention only one of them,that for possessing less than half the quantity of heroin discovered in his posession in more or less similar circumstances the sentence imposed on thataccused was 35 alsooneof fouryears imprisonment.Thisshows thatinthecase of the present appellant for about double thatquantity hewas given by analogy a muchlessersentence.Thatmeansthat considerable leniency was extended to the appellant due to his age and his personal situation. AQ 210 2CX.R· Aounv.Republic A. LolzouJ- Inthe circumstances of thiscase, however, thecondition ofhis health is not a matter justifying this Court to interfere on appeal withthe sentence imposed. The appeal istherefore dismissed. 5 Appeal dismissed. 211