2 C.L.R. 1987December4 rraiANTAFYLLIDES,P.,DEMETRIADES,LORIS.JJ.] l.STELIOSIERIDES, 2. S A W A S C H R I S T O D O U L O U , Appellants, v. T H E REPUBLIC, Respondent. (Criminal Appeals Nos. 4879, 4880). 5 Sentence— Conspiracy tocommit forgery and forgery ofacheque —15 months' impnsonment for the first offence and 20 months' imprisonment for the secondonappellant 1 — Thetwo offenceswereaspectsofoneand thesame crime — Uttenng a forged cheque and attempt, when such cheque was uttered, toobtain money byfalsepretences — 12months' impnsonment for the offence of uttenng and 9months' impnsonment for thesaidattempt on appellant 2 — Again both offences constituted different aspects of one and the samecnme — Once trial Judge decided that no more than 15 months' impnsonment should be imposed for the one of the twin offences on 10 appellant 1 and thatnomore than9months'should beimposed on appellant 2 for the one of the other twin offences, the better course waseither not to impose asentencefor each of the other twin offences or impose thesame sentence to run concurrently — Moreover, the sentence of 20 months on appellant 1will bereduced to 15months'impnsonment and thesentenceof 15 12 months' on appellant 2 will be reduced to 9 months' impnsonment, becauseoneofthe pnncipal culpntsescapedabroadandanother accomplice wasmade aprosecution witness— Appeals allowed to theextent indicated above. Thefactsofthiscasesufficiently appearinthejudgmentoftheCourt. 20 Appealsallowed. Sentences reducedasaforesaid. Appealsagainstsentence. Appeals against sentence Vjy Stelios Ierides and another who were convicted on the 13th May, 1987 at the District Courtof 25 Nicosia (Criminal Case No.25136/86) as follows:Accused 1on onecountoftheoffence ofconspiracytocommitforgerycontrary 219 lerides & Anotherv.Republic
(1987)tosection 371 of theCnminalCodeCap 154 and ononecountof the offence of forgery contrary to sections 331, 333 (d)(t)(n), 336, 20 and 21 of Cap 154 and accused 2 onone countof the offence of uttenng a forged cheque contrary to sections 331, 333, 336, 339, 20 and 21 of Cap 154 and on one count of the offence 5 of attempting to obtain money by false pretences contrary to sections 297, 298, 367, 368, 20 and 21 of Cap 154 and were sentenced by Kallis, DJ as follows Accused 1to fifteen months' impnsonmentonthefirst countandtwelvemonths'impnsonment on the second count and accused 2 to twelve months' 10 impnsonment on the first count and nine months' impnsonment on the second count, the sentence to run concurrently £ EfstathiouwithC Kamenosforappellant inappeal No 4879 Ν Panayiotou, for appellant inappeal Ν 4880 S Matsas,for the respondent 15 TRIANTAFYLLIDES Ρ gave the following judgment of the Court The appellants were the co-accused in cnminal case No 25136/86 before the DistnctCourtof Nicosia Appellant 1 was found guilty of the offence of conspinng between 27 and 29 May 1986, in Nicosia and Limassol, with a 20 certain Michael Hadji from Greece to commit forgery (on count 9 of thecharge) and oftheoffence ofhaving forgedbetween thebaid dates a cheque (oncount 11 of the charge) Appellant 2 was found guilty of the offence of uttenng on 30 May 1986 inNicosia theaforementioned forged cheque (oncount 25 12 of the charge) andof theoffence of attemptingon30 May 1986 in Nicosia toobtain money by falsepretencesby using thatcheque (on count 13 of the charge) Appellant 1was sentenced tofifteen months' impnsonment or count 9 and to twenty months' impnsonment on count 11, ana 30 appellant 2 was sentenced to twelve months' impnsonment on count 12 and to nine months' impnsonment on count 13, all sentences to run concurrently as from 11 May 1987 Both the appellants pleaded not guilty on their tnal and after they were convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid, they appealed 35 against both their convictions and the sentences which were passed upon them Dunng, however, the heanng of these appeals they both withdrew the appeals against their conviction, which were 220 2 C.L.R. lerides & Another v. Republic Triantafyllides P. dismissed accordingly, andtherewereheauJ ^id determined only theirappeals against sentence Inthelight of the circumstances of thiscane, Ά\ι hwe need i.^i narrate in thisjudgment for the purpose? _•* t* ietermtnation ~>ί 5 thepresent appeals andwhich aiemo r e thanadequately setout11 the carefully prepared judgment of the learned tnalJudge, and >' the light of all factors relevant to sentencing which were du'v weighed by the tnal juJge and are referred to in his Feasors x>. imposing the sentences in question on the appellants, we wou'' 10 not have been prepared to hold that the sentences which we.c imposed on the appellants are wrong in pnnciple or manifestly excessive had itnot been for the following considerations Appellant 1 was sentenced tofifteen months' impnsonment for having conspired fo forge the cheque in question and to twent\ 15 months'impnsonmentfor having actually forged it«nd both these two offences constitutetwo different aspects of one ζ.'·άthe same crime Apt>ellant 2 was sentenced totwelvemonths'imoncoiim^nt+<~" uttenngthesaid forged cheque andtoninemonths*impr.sor mem 20 for having attempted when he uttered the cheque to obtain the money by false pretences and again in our opinion, these V . offences constitute two different aspects of one and the SJ*1 cnnie In the particular circumstances of this case and one? \ v*. 25 Judge had decided that he would not impose more thr.\ hi ^ •* months' impnsonment on appellant 1 and moro twin i-nr months' impnsonmentonappellant 2 for one of thetwin of* .'ices which each of themhad committedwe thinkthatthebetterι curse would have been not to impose any sentence for the othet 30 offences committed by the appellants or to impose th*- same sentence to η·η concurrently We have, therefore, decided to intervene in fa ./QUI of tha appellants andtoreducethesentence-frnposed inrespec o*count 11 on appellant 1 from twently months' lmpnsonmen to fifteen 35 months' imprisonment so that itwill be the same as the sentence imposed on him in respect of count 9, and, also, to reduce from twelve imonths' impnsonment to nine months'impnsonment the sentence imposed on appellant 2 in respect of count 12 so thatit will be the same as the sentence imposed on him in respect of 40 count 13 221 Triantafyllides P. lerides & Another v. Republic
(1987)We have decided to reduce the sentences of the appellants, as aforesaid, alsobecause ofthereasonthatoneoftheprimeculprits inthiscase,theaforesaid Michael Hadjifrom Greece,neverhad to face trialinCyprusand another accomplice,Adamos Charitonos, was made a prosecution witness and thus he also evaded 5 punishment. It would, indeed, be unjust for the appellants to be made to serve the longer of the two sentences to which each one of them had been sentenced in respect of the two offences of which each oneofthemhadbeenfound guiltyanditisintheinterestsofjustice 10 for each one of them to serve the shorter of the two sentences which was imposed on him. In the light of the foregoing these appeals are allowed to the extent that the sentence imposed on appellant 1on count 11 is reduced from twenty months to fifteen months and the sentence 15 imposed on appellant 2 on count 12 is reduced from twelve months to nine months' imprisonment. Appeals allowed. Sentences reduced. 222