(1987)1987February26 fTRIAm-AFYULIDES. Ρ, LORIS STYLIAMDES.JJ 1 PANICOS SOTERIOU SAWIDES, Appellant, V THEPOLICE, Respondents (Criminal Appeal No. 4816) Sentence—Breaking and theft (ofarticlesvaluedat£49)contraryto $294(a)of the Cnmtnal Code, Cap 154—Fifteen outstandingoffences of similarnatureas well as previous convictions taken in consideration—Appellantaged 19— Twelve months' imprisonment—Ratherlenient The sole ground of this appeal is that the sentence of twelve months' impnsonmentof theappellant for theabove offence ismanifestly excessivein view of his young age In passing sentence the trial Court took into consideration fifteen outstandingoffences ofsimilar nature,thesenousness of the offence, the previous convictions of the appellant and the institutional treatmenthe received, as wellas his personal circumstances 5 XO Held, dismissing the appeal
(1)The task of this Court is not to assess,but to review the sentence
(2)There was no failure onthepart of the tnal Court toindividualisethe sentence The sentence is rather onthe lenient side 15 Appeal dismissed Cases referred to· Antoniadesv Nicolaouv The Police
(1986)2 C LR2 1 , ThePolice (\SSS) 2 C LR 52 Appeal against sentence. Appeal against sentencebyPanicosSoteriouSawides whowas convicted on the 28th November, 1986 at the Distnct Court of Limassol (Criminal Case No.29767/86) on one count of the offence of office breaking and theft contrary to section 294(
- a)of 70 20 2 CL.R. S a w i d e s v. Police the Cnminal Code, Cap 154 and was sentenced by Artemis, S DJ totwelve months'impnsonment G Kaizer, for the appellant St Theodoulou, for the respondents 5 10 15 20 TRIANTAFYLLIDES Ρ The Judgment of the Court will be delivered by Lons J LORISJ Thepresentappeal isdirectedagainst thesentenceof twelve months' impnsonment imposed by the Distnct Court of Limassol (P Artemis S D J ) in Limassol Cnminal Case No 29767/86, on the appellant, for the offence of breaking and theft contrary to the provisions of s 294(
- a)of the Cnminal Code Cap 154 Theappellant aged 19 was jointly charged with anotherperson (Ex-accused 1)aged 18,with breaking and entenngbetween the 27th and 28th day of October 1986 the factory of PANCYPRIA ETERIA ARTOPION Ltd in Limassol and stealing therefrom vanous articles valued at £49 - Both, appellant and ex-accused No 1,who isnotbefore us,pleaded guilty totheaforesaid charge At the request of the appellant 15 outstanding cases of similar nature were taken into consideration by the Court below in passing sentence onhim The sole ground upon which thepresent appeal is taken isthat thesentece ismanifestly excessive,inparticularinviewof the age of the appellant 25 Ithas been repeatedly stressed in the past and it was recently reiterated inthecase of Antoniades ν ThePolice
(1986)2C LR 21 that our task on appeal is to review the sentence and not to assess it, the assessment of sentence is the province of the tnal court Inthe instance underconsideration thelearned tnaljudge took 71 Loris J. Sawldes v. Police
(1987)into consideration the seriousness of the offence to which the appellantpleaded guilty,thefifteen outstandingoffences ofsimilar nature which the appellant invited the court to take into consideration, the previous convictions of the appellant and thp institutional treatment he received, as well as all the personal circumstances befitting the appellant. 5 TherewasnofailureonthepartofthetrialCourttoindividualise sentence; he took into consideration, as it isapparent from the judgment, the condition of the leg of the appellant as well, who had a traffic accident prior to his trial. The trial judge rightly 10 stressed that breaking and theft has assumed proportions of a social evil and emphasized the deterrent effect of the sentence in the circumstances. Wehold theviewthatthesentence isratheronthelenientside. Inthe case of Nicolaou v. The Police
(1985)2 C.L.R. 52 we had 15 nodifficulty inupholdingasentence ofthreeyears' imprisonment for the same offence imposed on a soldier aged 20. In the case aforesaid Ihadtheopportunity ofstatingthat«theyoungageofthe offender cannot afford an excuse for such kind of criminal behaviour» stressing atthesame time that the enforcement ofthe 20 Law «falls squarely on the shoulders of the Courts who must not flinch indischarging such duty.» During the hearing of thisappeal learned counsel for appellant submitted inter alia that the appellant should be examined by a specialist inconnection with the condition of hisleg.Weallowed 25 an adjournment directing the examination of the appellant by a specialistofhischoice,namely DoctorSawides,Senior Specialist inOrthopaedic Surgery. To-day we have before usthe report of the Doctor in question; itisabundantly clear from the report that «arthrodesis» isneeded 30 andsuchoperation canbeearnedoutinLimassolHospitalaswell. In the circumstances we trust that the Prison Authorities will see that such an operation on appellant is carried out either in Limassol Hospital or at the Nicosia General Hospital, if the 72 2 C.L.R. S a w i d e s v. Police Lori* J . appellant sowishes,pursuanttothe Medical Report produced. Intheresultthe appeal ishereby dismissed Appealdismissed. 73