1 C.L.R. 1988August1 (DEMETRIADES.J.) INTHEMATTEROFGEORGHIOS PATSALIDES, AND . INTHEMATTEROFANAPPLICATION BYTHEABOVEAPPLICANT FORANORDEROFHABEASCORPUS ATSUBJICIENDUM. (ApplicationNo. 108/88). 5 Sentence —Imprisonment —Remission of, for good .conduct and industry— The Prisons(General)Regulations, 1981, as amended by Regulations published on 13.3.87— Conviction and sentence imposed after13.3.87, but term thatthesentence wouldrunfroma date prior to 13.3.87 —In the light of Reg. 5 of the amending Regulations, thenew Regulations areapplicable. Drt7*9-87the applicant wasconvicted forrobbery and abduction andwas-Sentenced to two years' imprisonment, to run as from the day when he had been remanded tocustody, i.e.as from 21.2.
- 10 15 The question in this case iswhether the remission of applicant's sentence for good conduct and industry is governed by the Regulationsinforce ason the21.2.87 orthe Regulationsinforce on 7.5.
- Heidi dismissing(heapplication,that inthelightofthe wordingof Regulation 5oftheamending Regulations,thecaseofthe applicant isregulated by the new Regulations, because he wasconvicted and sentenced after they came into force. Application dismissed No orderasto costs. 20 Application. Application for an order of habeas corpus by Georghios Patsaiides w h o w a s convicted on his ownjDlea and sentenced to imprisonment on the ground that his detention at the Central Prisons in Nicosia is unlawful. 25 E. Chimonas, for the applicant. P. Clerides, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 47 InrePatsaiides
(1988)DEMETRIADESJ. read thefollowing judgment.The applicant, who was convicted by the Nicosia Assizeson the 7th May, 1987, on his own plea and sentenced to imprisonment, seeks an order for habeas corpus at subjiciendum on the ground that his detention atthe Central PrisonsinNicosia isunlawful. 5 The facts that led to the present proceedings are: On the 7th May, 1987,the applicant wasconvicted bythe Assizesof Nicosia on hisown plea for robbery and abduction and wassentenced to imprisonment onthree counts.Thetotalofthesentences imposed on himwastwoyears.Asthe applicant was remanded incustody 10 forthe offences he pleaded guilty to on the 21st February, 1987, theAssizeCourtordered thathisimprisonmentwastorun as from thatdateand notfrom the dayofhisconviction. Inadditionto the sentence imposed by it the Assize Court decided to order the activation ofa suspended sentenced ofsixmonths'imprisonment 15 imposed by another Court on the applicant which was to start runningafter theapplicant servedhissentence oftwoyears. Itisthe complaint of the applicant that the Director of Prisons ought to have calculated the remission of hissentence for good conduct and industry in accordance with the provisions and the 20 Regulationsinforce asatthe21stFebruary, 1987,thatisthe date when theAssizeCourt ordered thathisimprisonment startedtorun andnotfrom thedatehewasconvicted andsentenced, i.e.the7th May,
- Remission of sentencesimposed bytheCourtsofthe Republic 25 for good conduct and industry are regulated by Regulations 91 99ofthePrisons(General)Regulations of 1981{seeSupplement No.3oftheOfficial GazetteoftheRepublicNo. 16/60of the30th January, 1981, Notification No. 18). These regulations were a nended by Notification 76of 1987 which was published inthe 30 3rd Supplement of the Official Gazette of the Republic No. 2214 onthe 13th March,
- Itiscommon ground thatwhen a person issentenced to serve a term of imprisonment after thetermination ofanother sentence thetotalofthe twosentencesiscalculated asone{seeRegulation 35 96(a) and that the sentence of imprisonment which the applicant hadtoservewasa totalof twoyearsand sixmonths. 480 1C.L.R. 5 InrePatsaHdes Demetriade·J. Itis the sumbission of counsel for the applicant that inview of the orderof theAssizeCourtthatthesentence of his clientof two years"U$T$>n5onmenthad,to,startrunningas from the21st Fgbruary, 1987, the Regulations of 1981 and not the amending Regulations ot 1983 apply and,therefore, hisclientoughtto have been released from prison on the21st June, 1988 and notonthe 29th September, 1988, as the Directorof Prisonshad decided. <£<SdrfsfeI for the respondents submitted, however, that the amended Regulation does notapply inthe case of the applicant, 10 in view of the provisions of Regulation 5 of the amending Regulations of 1983 which reads: «Αι διατάξεις των π α ρ ό ν τ ω ν Κανονισμών δεν εφαρμόζονται επί κρατουμένων καταδικασθέντωνπρο της ενάρξεωςτης ισχύος των π α ρ ό ν τ ω ν Κανονισμών.» 15 («5.Theprovisions of thepresent Regulations donotapply in thecase of detainedpersons convicted priortothe coming intoforce of the present Regulations.») Considering the wording of this Regulation Ihave come to the conclusion that the intention of the legislature was to exclude 20 personsfoundguiltyandwhosesentencestartedtorunpriortothe coming into force of this Regulation, that is persons who were already serving their sentence when the Regulation came into force, from thebenefits given by thisRegulation andthatthe new Regulations apply in the case of the applicant because he was 25 convicted and sentenced after the coming into force of this Regulation. / Therefore, theDirectorofPrisonswas correctininterpretingthis Regulation and for this reason the application of the applicant is dismissed but, inthecircumstances, I make no orderas to costs. 30 Application dismissed withno order as to costs. 481