(1987)1987 November4 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES Ρ, DEMETR1ADES, LOR1S, JJ} A B D E L N A S E R A H M E D E L YIAMANI A B O AMIRA, Appellant, ν THEREPUBUC, Respondent (Cnmmal Appeal No 4877) Sentence — Utteringfalse travellers' cheques — Three years' impnsonment — After the sentence waspassed itwas discoveredthatappellantwas indanger of loosing his eyesight, unless he received treatment abroad— Such fact justifiesthe exceptional courseof showing Courts mercy to theappellant ConstitutionalLaw—Constitution Art 53 4— Prerogativeof mercy—The power of the Supreme Court to reduce sentence on appeal and the President's prerogativeof mercy are not alwaysmutually exclusive 5 The appellant who comes from Egypt, was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonmentfor uttering threefalse travellers' cheques After the imposition of the said sentence it was discovered that appellant 10 was in danger of losing his eyesight The eye specialist, who examined the appellant, recomii anded an operation which, however, could not be performed tnCypru Counselfor the ,<>spondentsubmitted thatthematterof treatmentcanonly be dealt with by the President of the Republic under Art 53 4 of the 15 Constitution Held, allowing the appeal
(1)The power of the Court in dealing with an appealagainstsentence andthose of thePresidentof the Republic underthe saidArticle53 4are notalwaysand inevitably mutually exclusive
(2)The exceptional course of showing the Court's mercy tothe appellant Isinthiscase justified 20 Appealallowed Casesreferredto Barhouch ν Republic
(1987)2C L.A'245 248 2C.L.R. Amira v. Republic Appealagainst sentence. Appeal against sentence by Abdel Naser Ahmed El Yiamani AboAmirawhowasconvicted onthe 12thMay,1987attheAssize CourtofLimassol(CriminalCaseNo.7827/87) onthreecountsof 5 theoffence ofutteringfalsetraveller'schequescontrarytosections 339, 336 and 20 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154 and was sentenced by Hadjitsangaris, P.D.C., Artemis, S.D.J, and Stravnnides, D.J. to three years' imprisonment on each count to run concurrently. 10 Appellant appeared in person. A. Vassiliades, for the respondent. TR1ANTAFYLLIDES P. gave the following judgment of the Court. The appellant, who came from Egypt, was sentenced, on 12May 1987,to three years' imprisonment after he had pleaded 15 guilty to uttering three false traveller's cheques for 100 U.S.A. dollars each. Having in mind all the circumstances of his case, to which we need not refer in detail, we do not consider the said sentence as beingwronginprinciple or manifestly excessive. 20 While,however, the appellant wasinprison he was examined by a Government eye-specialist, Dr. A. Solomonides, and was found to have a serious affliction of his right eye, with nearly completelossofthesightofthateye;anditappearsthathisleft eye has also been afflicted and though the sight of that eye isfor the 25 time beingnormal itmaydeteriorate, too. According to the report of the said eye-specialist it is not possibletotreattheeyesoftheappellantherebutitispossiblethat they will improve after an operation which can be performed abroad. 30 The appellant who has appeared without the assistance of counsel hasasked ustoreduce hissentencesoastoenablehimto return to hiscountry in order to be operated there with a view to savinghiseyesight. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that we cannot 35 interveneinfavour oftheappellantforthepurpose ofhelpinghim to receive treatment abroad which isnot available inCyprus and that this is a matter to be dealt with by the President of the 249 TriantafyUide. P. Amirav. Republic
(1987)Republic, on the recommendationof theAttorney-General of the Republic, underArticle 53 4of theConstitution We do notthinkthatourpowers as aCourtofAppeal in dealing with an appeal against sentenceand those of thePresident of the Republic under the said Article 53 4 are always and inevitably mutually exclusive, and this is one of those cases in which either our powers may be resorted to or those of the President of the Republic might be exercised 5 We are of the view that even though the cnmes which were committed by the appellant are quite senous there is no 10 justification atall inlaw orinjustice and moralityfor sayingthatthe appellant because of having been sentenced in respect of such cnmes has to lose his eyesight by remaining in pnson here whilst he can possibly save his eyesight by being treated without delay abroad by means of surgery which cannot be performed in 15 Cyprus We have decided to adopt the exceptional course of showing the Court's mercy to the appellant (and see, in this respect, too, Barhouch ν The Republic, Criminal Appeal No 4759 determined on 24 Apnl 1987*, and not reported yet) by reducing 20 his sentence so thathe canbe released immediately inorderto be enabled toleave Cyprus and return to his country where his eye affliction maybetreatedinamannernotpossible asyet in Cyprus We, therefore, allow thisappeal accordingly Appeal allowed *Reportedm
(1987)2CLR 245 250 25