2 C.L.R1987April4 (TRIANTAFYLUDES.P.,DEMETRIADES.LORIS,JJ.j DEMETRAKIS ANDREOU DEMETRIOU, Appellant, v. THE REPUBLIC, Respondent. (Criminal Appeal No. 4831). Sentence — Desertion from National Guard — First offender —Nine months' 5 imprisonment—TrialCourtinfluencedbyfactthatappellantremained away fromhisunitforaperiod3monthsapproximately—Appellant, however, had not been evadingarrest, butcould easilybe found —Sentence reduced to sixmonths' imprisonment. The facts ofthiscase sufficiently appear inthejudgment ofthe Court Appeal alio*/eo Appeal against sentence. Appeal against sentence by Demetrakis Andreou Demi ou 10 whowasconvicted onthe 9thJanuary, 1987atthe Military <urt of Nicosia (Case No. 660/86) on one count of the offer . j of desertion from hisunitcontrarytosections29
(1)
(2)and31
(1)
(2)of the Military Criminal Code and Procedure Law, 1964 and was sentencedtoninemonths'imprisonment. 15 G.D.Georghiou, forthe appellant. St. Tamassios,forthe respondent. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. gave the following judgment of the Court. The appellant wassentenced bythe MilitaryCourt to nine months' imprisonment, commencing on 9 January 1987, for the 20 offence of desertion from hisunit inthe National Guard. On 16March 1987weadjourned totodaythefurther hearingof this appeal because we found it necessary to have before us, in addition to the social investigation report which was produced 275 Triantafytlldee P. Demetriou v.Republic
(1987)before the trial Court reports uy a psychiatnst and by a psychologist regarding the men J health and psychological condition oftheappellant, which appear tohavebeen influenced and affected adverselytoacertau11xtentbyaveryunpleasantskin afflictior fr^m which the appellant issuffenng We agree with the trial Court that the offence of desertion isa senous one, especially in the present difficult times for our country, and weagree also,with the approach tothe assessment oftheproper sentence tobeimposed ontheappellantwhich was adopted bythe trial Court We cannot, therefore, say that thisisa 10 caseinwhichasentence ofimprisonment waswronginprinciple Weshould not, however, losesightofthefactthattheappellant has been serving inthe National Guard sinceJanuary 1985,and untilhe committed the offence ofdesertion on24March 1986 he wasvery wellbehaved Onthe basisof allthe matenal before us 15 he appears to be a person of good, even though rather weak, character What seems to have influenced the tnal Court in imposing a rather longer than usual for a first offender sentence of impnsonment as regards desertion was the fact that he remained 20 awayfrom hisunitforapenod ofjustoverthreemonths,upto25 June 1986 Hadthisbeenacaseinwhichitwasdifficulttotracetheappellant because he had been evadingarrest,thisfactor could, indeed, be saidtobeanaggravatingone Buttheappellantwasallthetimeat 25 home Hecouldeasilyhavebeenfound,arrestedandbroughtback tohisunit Itwasbecause ofsome laxityon thepartofthe military authontiesthathewasallowedtoremainatlargeforthreemonths In a way he was, perhaps, made to believe wrongly that his desertionwasnotregarded,afterall asaverysenousmatter 30 We really do not think that mthis particular case there should have been attributed, inassessingthe sentence tobe imposed on theappellant, much importance tothe length ofthepenod dunng which hisdesertion had lasted and we are of the opinion that the tnal Court, having given undue weight tothisaspect of the case, 35 has imposed on the appellant a manifestly excessive, in the circumstances, sentence 276 5 2 C.L.R. Demctrlou v.Republic Triantafyllldea P. Inthe lightofallthe foregoing, includingthebad psychological condition of the appellant, we have decided to reduce the sentence passed upon him tosixmonths' imprisonment. Appealallowed. Sentence reduced to 5 sixmonths. 277