clr/1987/1987_2_91.pdf

(1987)now in the Amencan University of Beirut His wife does not work Both appellants have acleancnminalrecordandexpressed theirsincere apologies for what they have done Held,allowing the appeal

(1)ThisCourtadoptsthestatement in Kashawi ν The Republic

(1985)2 C L R 37 at 39 that «Forging, possessing and uttenng false documentsare of themselves very senous offences and in no way they should be treated in a mannerthatmay appear tobe encouraging theircommission· Ofcourse,ineachcase thegravityof thefacts aswellasthe personal circumstances of theaccused mustbe assessed 5

(2)Inthis instance thetnal Courtattached undue weight tothe numberof 1 0 the forged bank notes found inappellants' possession loosing sight, on the one hand, that only two of them were used, and on the other hand, the personal circumstances of each accused The sentence of each appellant on each countwillbe reduced totwo and ahalf years' impnsonmert Sentences torun concurrently from conviction "5 Appealsallowed Eachsentence reduced to two and ahalfyears' impnsonment Sentences to runconcurrentlyasfrom date of conviction Casesreferredto Kashawiv TheRepublic

(1985)2 CLR 37 Appeals against sentence. Appeals against sentence by Mohamad Kassim and Another who were convicted on the 13th February, 1987 at the Assize Court of Limassol (Cnminal Case No 2359/87) on one count of 25 the offence of possessing forged bank notes contrary to sections 354 and 20 of the Cnminal Code Cap 154, on one count of uttenngforged bank notescontrarytosections339,336, and20of theCnminalCode,Cap 154, ontwo countsof obtainingcredit by false pretences contrary to sections 301(a), 297 and 20 of the 30 Cnminal Code, Cap 154 and on two counts of the offence of obtaining money by false pretences contrary tosections 297, 298 and 20 of the Cnminal Code Cap 154 and were sentenced by Hadjitsangans, Ρ DC , Fr Nicolaides, S DJ and Hadjihambis, DJ to four years' impnsonment each on count 1, to five years' 35 impnsonment each on count2,with nosentencebeing passed on the remaining four counts,thesentences torunconcurrently Appellants appeared in person. A Vassihades, for the respondent 92 -* ^" 2 C.L.R. Kaesim and Anotherv. Republic TRIANTAFYLUDES P.: The judgment of the Court will be delivered byLoris,J. LORIS J.: Both appeals, which were heard together, are directed against the sentences imposed by the Assize Court of 5 Limassol, on each one oftheappellantswhopleaded guiltytothe following sixjoint counts of the indictment in Limassol Criminal Case No.2359/87: 10 (

1. a)Possessing forged banknotes of 100 U.S.A. dollars countrary tosections345 and 20 ofthe Criminal Code,Cap. 154(Count 1) (
2. b)Uttering four forged banknotes of 100 U.S.A. dollars, contrary toss339,336 and 20of Cap. 154(Count2) (c)Obtaining credit by false pretences contrary to sections 301(a), 297 and 20 ofCap. 154(Counts3 and5). 15 (d)Obtaining moneybyfalsepretencescontrarytosections 297,298 and 20 ofCap. 154(Counts4 and6) Each accused was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment on Count 1 and five years' imprisonment on Count 2; terms of imprisonment to run concurrently. No sentence wasimposed on 20 the remaining four counts as they referred substantially to the samefacts relied upon inCount 2. Each one of the appellants filed personally separate appeals complainingthatthesentencesaforesaid aremanifestlyexcessive. Thefacts of the caseareverybriefly as follows: 25 Bothappellants arrived from Lebanon to Lamaca airport on 13.1.87andtheyweregivenpermittostayinCyprusasvisitorsup to 19.1.87. On the day of their arrival they stayed at«EFTYHIA» Hotel in Lamaca; on the next dayat Lamaca they hired a «Z» car by means of which they travelled to Limassol on 15.1.87; in 30 Limassolon 15.1.87theyvisitedsuccessivelyatabout2.00p.m.2.30p.m.tworestaurantswheretheyhad food anddrinks,paying on each occasion the relevant bill (around £10) by means of a forged 100 U.S.A. dollarsbank notegettingatthe same time, on eachoccasion,thebalanceinCyprusmoney.Ataboutmidnightof 35 the same day they visited a cabaret in Limassol and after consuming several drinks they attempted to pay off the bill of £28.- by asking for change of 2 forged bank notes of 100U.S.A. dollars each; the person in charge of the cabaret suspecting that 93 LorlsJ. Kassim and Another v. Republic

(1987)the 2 banknotes were forged pretented that he would gotoabar opposite in order to get change and getting out from the cabaret informed the Police Shortly afterwards both appellants were arrestedandconfessed AsearchintheirhotelinLamaca revealed nothing, but on the next day, whilst both appellants were in 5 custody 61 more forged banknotes of 100 U S A dollars were traced in the «Z» car hired by the appellants in Lamaca Both appellants admitted having in their possession the aforesaid forged banknotes aswell Both appellants are Lebanese subjects Appellant in Cnminal 10 Appeal No 4850, who willbe referred to hereinafter as the first appellant, (whilstappellant inCr App 4851 willbereferred toas the second appellant) is23 years of age, single He isone of 11 childrenofapoor Lebanesefamily,heattended onlythe 1stgrade in secondary education and thereafter he left school in order to 15 assist htsfather in hiswork The second appellant is26yearsold, he is mamed with two minors, according to the social investigation report his wife aged 24 is a housewife, their minor children are aged 3 and 1 years respectively The Second appellant is giving pnvate lessons in Lebanon earning very little 20 and at the same time he is studying medicine in the Amencan University of Beirut, he has managed to complete 4years studies intheaforesaid University upto now Both appellants have no cnminal record Inspite of the fact that before the commencing ofthe heanng of 25 these appeals we have made itcleartothem that theycould have legal aid ifthey so wished, they both insisted that they wanted to support their appeals personally The first appellant further indicated clearly that he wished to adopt whatever the second appellant would say The second appellant addressing us in English referred to the offences in question, and submitted that the sentences imposed aremanifestly excessive,hereferred tohispersonal circumstances includinghisfamilyandhisminorchildrenandoffenng hissincere apology he invited us to reduce the sentence imposed by the 35 Assize Court The first appellant indorsed the address of the second and added few words about hispersonal circumstances expressing at thesame timehisrepentance and sincere apology 94 30 2 CL-R. Kassim and Another v.Republic Loris J. Learned counsel appearing ior the Republic conceded that thesentences were manifestly excessive. Wehaveconsidered thefactsand circumstances ofthesecases; we have also considered the personal circumstances of both 5 appellants. Itistrue that the offences ofpossessing forged bank notes and uttering same, are of a very serious nature; their seriousness is reflected by the maximun punishment each one carries; thus the punishment for possession is 7 years whilst for uttering the law 10 envisages up tolife imprisonment. We are in full agreement with the statement in Kashawiv. The Republic

(1985)2 C.L.R. 37 at 39 that «Forging, possessing and uttering false documents are of themselves veryserious offences andinnowaytheyshouldbetreatedinamannerthat mayappear 15 tobeencouragingtheircommission » Ofcourseineachparticularcaseofsuchnaturethegravityofthe facts of the case must be assessed, as well as the personal circumstances of the accused; and the trial Court must impose a sentencebefitting thecrimeaswellasthe offender. 20 We feel that in this particular instance the trial Court attached undueweighttothenumberoftheforged banknotesfoundinthe possession of the appellants, loosingsight, on the one hand, that only two forged bank notes were in fact used, and on the other hand failed toassessproperlythe personal circumstancesof each 25 appellant including the fact that they are bothfirstoffenders, mat they have made clean breast of the offences inquestion and that theyhave pleaded guiltyattheirtrialbytheAssize Court. In the circumstances we hold the view that learned counsel appearing for the Republic rightly conceded that sentences 30 imposed on both appellants were manifestly excessive; we have decided therefore to intervene: Thesentence of each accusedoneach countishereby reduced to 2 1/2 years; terms of imprisonment to run concurrently from conviction. 35 Appeals allowed accordingly. 95