clr/1987/1987_2_257.pdf

(1)Thesentence on theappellantswaspassed before Paphitis'acquittal.Thelatter'sroleinthecommission of the offences ought tohavebeen taken intoaccountasamitigating factor. 20

(2)AppellantPamboukas, though inlawwasguiltyof armed robbery, was present at the scene, when the robbery was committed and, for this reason, the trialCourt, inassessing sentence, ought to differentiate between Pamboukas and appellant Constantmou. not Appeal allowed. Sentence on Constantmou reduced tosix years' impnsonment. Sentence onPamboukasreducetofiveyears' impnsonment. *-5 257 N. 2 C.L.R. Pamboukas &Another v. Republic

(1987)Appealsagainstsentence. Appealsagainstsentence byAndreas Pamboukas and Another whowereconvicted onthe3rdFebruary, 1987attheAssizeCourt ofNicosia(CriminalCaseNo.569/87)ononecountofthe offence ofconspiracytocommitafelonycontrarytosections371,282and 5 283 of the Criminal Code Cap. 154, on one count of the offence ofarmed robberycontrary tosections255,282,283 and20ofthe Criminal Code, Cap. 154, on twocounts counts each of carrying automatic weapons contrary tosections 2, 3(l)(b), 2(a) and 28of the Firearms Law, 1974 (Law No.38/74asamended byLaw27/ 10 78)and section20 oftheCriminalCode,Cap. 154,ontwocounts each forusingtheabove firearmscontrarytotheabovesectionsof the Lawand on two countsof possessing and carrying explosives contrary tothe provisions of theabove Lawsand were sentenced by Nikitas, P.D.C., Laoutas, S.D.J, and Michaelides, D.J. to 15 concurrent terms of imprisonment of three years on the first Count, seven years on the second count, 4 years on counts3,4, 5 and 6and twoyearson counts 7,8, 9and

1. E. Efstathiou with M. Tsangarides and C. Kamenos, for appellant inCr.Appeal
2. 20 P.Angelides, for appellant inCr. Appeal
3. R. Gavrieiides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. gave the following judgment of the Court. The two appellants in these cases, Andreas Pamboukas 25 (appellant inCriminalAppeal 4848)and Georghios Constantinou (appellant in Criminal Appeal 4849), were sentenced to three years' imprisonment fortheoffence ofconspiracy, toseven years' imprisonment for the offence of armed robbery, to four years' imprisonment for offences of carrying and using firearms and to 30 two years' imprisonment for offences of possessing and carrying ammunition. The armed robbery wascommitted on 23December 1986and the conspiracy was related to the commission of the armed robbery. The carrying and using of firearms and the possession 35 and carrying of ammunition occurred in relation to the commission of thearmed robbery. Before the trial Court appellant Constantinou was accused 1 and appellant Pamboukas was accused
4. They both pleaded 258 2 C.L.R. Pamboukas & Another v.Republic TriantafyHides P. guilty whereas another co-accused (accused 3),AntonisPaphitis, pleaded not guilty and was acquitted as the tnal Court was not satisfied with the quality of the evidence aduced against him The appellants were sentenced on 3 February 1987, and the 5 said Paphitiswasacquitted on 16March 1987 The salient facts of these casesappear tobe as follows At4 30 a m on 23 December 1986 about thirtypersons were assembled for thepurpose ofgamblingatthe premises of«Olympiacos» club in Nicosia when two hooted persons, armed with military 10 weapons, rushed suddenly into the building and, having immobilised thoseassembled there,theytookawaywiththem about £5,000 ,which ihey found at the premises of the said club Apoliceman,whowasattheclub,managed togetawaywithout beingseen bythe robbersand hereturned soon afterwards tothe i5 scene after having secured an automatic weapon from a nearby police station Asthetworobberswereleavingthepremisestherefollowed an exchange offirebetween oneofthemandthesaidpoliceman and, as a result, the one who fired waskilled on the spot, whereas the 20 other one managed to escape The one who was killed is Theodoros Pittaras and the one who escaped is appellant Constantinou Both appellants, atabout 6a m of thesameday,were arrested by the Police while proceeding towards the «Olymbiakos» club, 25 and, on being interrogated, appellant Constantinou admitted his participation in the robbery and appellant Pampoukas confessed that he had supplied Constantinou and Pittaras with firearms and ammunition, which he had taken unlawfully from a National Guard camp where he was serving 30 We agree with the learned Judges of the Assize Court, who imposed the sentences against which the appellants have appealed, that the offences to which they pleaded guiltyare very senous, indeed, and that long sentences of impnsonment were necessary inthe circumstances of thiscase 35 AppellantConstantinou was,atthematenal time,eighteen and a half yearsoldandappellant Pampoukas wasnineteen yearsold Theexco-accused 3oftheappellants,AntonisPaphitis,whowas, eventually, acquitted, was at the time of the armed robbery twenty-seven years old 259 TriantafyUides p. Pamboukas &Anotherv.Republic

(1987)It has been contended by counsel for the appellants, and this seems to be endorsed by counsel for the respondent, that the aforementioned Paphitis, who ismuch older than the appellants, masterminded the plan to raid «Olympiakos» clubinorderto rob those gambling there of their money and exercised a decisive 5 influence on them in driving them into the commission of the crimesasaresultof whichtheyfind themselvesservinglongterms of imprisonment. The fact that, eventually, Paphitis was not convicted because thetrialCourtwasnotsatisfied withthequality of the evidence against him,cannoteliminate, from thecontextof 10 thiscase,hissinister influence on the twoappellants inrelation to thecommission bythem of theoffences in question. Weare of the opinion thatat the time when the trial Court was passing sentence on the appellants, prior to the acquittal of Paphitis,hisalleged roleinthematter, which had been confirmed 15 by counsel appearing for the prosecution, ought to have been taken into account as a mitigating element in favour of the appellants; and we are of the opinion that the trial Court has not actually given sufficient weight to the fact that the two appellants were acting under the influence of a much older accomplice, 20 namely Paphitis. As regards appellant Pamboukas itis an undeniable fact that, though heisinlawguiltyoftheoffence ofarmedrobbery,inactual fact he never participated in the robbery bybeing present at the «Olymbiakos»clubatthetimewhenitwascarriedoutand,weare 25 oftheview,thatthetrialCourtinassessingsentenceoughttohave differentiated, for this reason as between appellant Pamboukas and appellant Constantinou. Having given the matter most anxious consideration we have reached the conclusion that, for all the foregoing reasons, the 30 sentencesofsevenyears'imprisonment, whichwerepassed upon the appellants for the armed robbery, should be reduced to six years inso farasappellant Constantinou isconcerned and to five years in so far as appellant Pamboukas isconcerned, but we do notproposetointerferewiththesentencespasseduponthesetwo 35 appellants in respect of the other offences committed by the appellants. These appeals are, consequently, allowed accordingly. Appeals allowed. 260