(1987)1987 March 16 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES Ρ DEMETRIADES LORIS JJ 1 KYRIACOS SOCRATOUS, Appellant, ν THE POLICE, Respondents (Criminal Appeal No 4855) Sentence—Knowingly living on the earningsof prostitution contraryto section 164{l)(a) of the Cnminal Code, Cap 154—Appellant jointly chargedwith another person (exaccused 2)—Three months' impnsonment on appellant and£250 •fine on ex accused2—Sentence on appellant, ifisolatedfromthe other sentence—not manifestly excessive—But in the circumstances, includingthe dispantyand the absence of reasoningfor the differentiation, it is wrong m pnnciple-One month's impnsonment would have been the proper sentence 5 Sentence—Dispanty as aground ofappeal The appellant, who was jointly charged with ex-accused 2 for the above offence, was sentenced to three months'impnsonment,whilst ex-accused 2 was sentenced for the same offence to a fine of £250 - The fact that exaccused 2 was the breadwifTner of his family and the fact that a sentence of impnsonmentwould have haddisastrous consequences bothonhiswork and on his pension tipped the scales against a sentence of imprisonment The main complaint of theappellant isdispanty of sentence 10 15 Held,allowingthe appeal
(1)The sentence, if isolated from thesentence of ex-accused 2, is notmanifestly excessive
(2)Dispanty of sentence has been repeatedly considered by this Court Thereisnodoubtthatthesentenceonex-accused 2was individualised Inthe light, however, of all thecircumstances, including thedispanty aswellas the absence of reasoning for the differentiation of sentence in respect of the appellant,thesentenceiswrong tnprincipleand,astheappellanthas already served one month's impnsonment, which is the appropnate sentence, he wouldbe discharged as from to-day Appeal allowed 74 20 ^ 2 C.L.R. Socratous v. Police Cases refened to. Nicolaouv The Police
(1969)2 CL.R 120. lacovouand Othersν TheRepublic(197'6) 2C.L.R 114; Kot.kosν ThePolice 11986)2C L R.l. 5 10 Appeal against sentence. Appeal against sentence by Kyriacos Socratous who was convicted on the 18.2.87 at the District Court of Famagusta (Criminal Case No.162/87) on one count of the offence of knowingly living on earnings of prostitution contrary to section 164(l)(
- a)of the Criminal Code, Cap.154 and was sentenced by Eliades. D.J.tothreemonths'imprisonment. A. Zachariou, for the appellant. A.M. Angelides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for therespondents. 15 TRIANTAFYLLIDES P.: The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Loris,J. LORISJ.:Thepresentappeal isdirectedagainst thesentenceof three months' imprisonment imposed on the appellant by the District Courtof Famagusta (Criminal Case No.162/87) upon his 20 plea of guilty toajointcharge with ex-accused No.2,of knowingly livingon the earnings of prostitution contrary tosection 164(l)(
- a)of the CriminalCode, Cap.154. Ex-accused No.2,a42 year old taxi driver pleaded guilty tothe charge on 12.2.1987 and was sentenced to a fine of £250; the 25 appellant, a 40 year old waiter, pleaded initially not guilty tothe joint charge; on 16.2.87 immediately before thecommencement of thehearing ofhiscase,after obtainingtheleaveof thetrialcourt he withdrew his previous plea and entered a plea of guilty; upon his plea of guilty he was sentenced as aforesaid, tothreemonths' 30 imprisonment. The main complaint of the appellant is disparity of sentence; learned counsel onhisbehalf argued thatitwas wrong inprinciple tomakesuch adifferentiation between thesentencepassed onexaccused No.2andtheappellant inviewof the fact thatboth were 75 LorU J. Socratous v. Police
(1987)first offenders and the role of each one in the commission of the offence was more or lessthesame, ifthe role ofex-accused No.2 wasnot more serious. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent conceded that there was a disparity of sentence and stressed that there was no 5 reasoningjustifying such a differentiation inpassing sentence. Thedisparityofsentence isagroundwhichhasbeen repeatedly considered by our Courts; we shall confine ourselves in mentioninghere thecaseof Nicolaou v. ThePolice
(1969)2CLR 120, the case of Iacovou &Others v. TheRepublic
(1976)2 CLR 10 114, where the learned President of thisCourt has elaborated at lenght on the «Principle of disparity of sentence as a ground of AppeaU'(vide pages 128-131) and the recent case of Koukos v. The Police
(1986)2 CLR1. In the appeal under consideration we have carefully gone 15 through therecordandthesentencesimposedbythetrialCourtin thecaseof ex-accused No.2and theappellant.Thereisnomargin for doubt that the sentence passed on ex-accused No.2 was individualized; the fact that he was the breadwinner of a family consisting of hiswife and two minor children, as wellas the fact 20 that a term of imprisonment would have had disastrous consequences both on hiswork at the Sovereign Base Area, as well as on his pension, tipped"the scales against a sentence of imprisonment. The sentence of three months' imprisonment imposed on the 25 appellantfortheoffence ofthejointcharge,seenisolatedfrom the case of ex-accused No.2, cannot be described as manifestly excessive; and we would not be prepared to interfere on that ground alone.Butconsideringallthecircumstancesofthecase,in the light of the facts before us, including the disparity of the 30 sentence imposed on ex-accused No.2 - conceded by learned counselappearing forthe Respondents -aswellastheabsenceof reasoning for the differentiation of sentence in respect of the appellant, we hold the view that the sentence imposed on the present appellant iswrong inprinciple. 35 With all that in mind, we have come tothe conclusion that the best we can do in thiscase, isto discharge the appellant from todayconsideringthatthepartofthesentencewhichhehasalready 76 2 C.L.R. Socratous v. Police Lorid J. served (one month) is the appropriate sentence in the circumstances. Intheresulttheappealisallowd.Thesentence isreduced tothe period which appellant has already served in prison until to-day, 5 sothat he may bereleased forthwith. Weorder accordingly. Appeal allowed. 77