2C.L.R. 1988November 17 (PIK1S,PAPADOPOULOS. HADJITSANGARIS.JJ.) 1.YIANNAKISSAWA DEMETRIOU«KOKKINOS·, 2.STELIOSCOSTADEMOU, Appellants, v. THEREPUBLIC, Respondent. (CriminalAppeals Nos. 5002, 5003). 5 10 15 Sentence —Burglaryand theftofshotguns, contrarytosections294(a)of the CriminalCode, Cap. 154 and sequential illegal carryingof the shotguns —Sixteen other similar offences involving theft of property in excess of £1,000.-, of which a small portion was recovered by the owners, were taken intoconsideration inthe case of appellant 1, whilstfour other similaroffences, involving theft of property valued at £10,000.-, half of which wasrecovered by the owners, were taken into consideration inthe caseofappellant 2— Appellants,aged 19and20 respectively, hadaburdened record— Fouryears' imprisonment on appellant 1 for the firstof the said offences and one year foreach of the other offences — Two years' imprisonment onappellant2 forthefirstofthesaidoffences and one year foreach of the other offences —Sentences on appellant 2 not excessive —Sentences onappellant 1not manifestly excessive. Appellant 1 was sentenced to four years' imprisonment for the aforesaid burglaryand oneyear for each of the remaining offences. Appellant 2 was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for the aforesaid burglary and oneyear foreach of the remaining offences. 20 In passing sentence on appellant 1 the trial Court took into consideration sixteen similar offences, involving theft of property valued in excess of£11,000.-, of which only asmallproportion was recovered by its owners. " In passing sentence on appellant 2, the tnal Court took into consideration fourothersimilaroffences, involvingtheft of property. valued at£10,000.-, onlyhalf of which wasrestored toitsowners. 175 Demetriou v. Republic
(1988)Notwithstanding their young age (19 and 20 respectively) both appellants were burdened with previous convictions, especially appellant 2. Held,dismissingthe appeals:
(1)The Courtinvariably pondersthe reformatory effect thai punishment may have on 'Hefuture ways of 5 a young offender. Sentencing is a compound process that involves the balancing of a multitude of factors, ultimately designed to be socially beneficial. Everybody stands togain from thechange of the criminal ways of young members of society. But faced with the absence of any visiblesignsofchange andlack of response toearlier 10 reformatory sentencing measures, the Courtcannotstand idle. The sentence on appellant 2 is not excessive. The sentence on appellant 1, though severer than this Court would be inclined to approve, is not manifestly excessive, so as tojustify intervention by ι c thisCourt. Appeals dismissed. Casesreferred to: loannou and Another v. The Police
(1986)2 C.L.R. 149; Koukos v. The Republic
(1986)2 C.L.R. 1; Sawides v. The Republic
(1987)2 C.L.R. 70; 20 Antoniades ν The Police
(1986)2 C.L.R.21; Philippou v. The Republic
(1983)2 C.L.R. 245. Appeals against sentence. Appeals against sentence by Yiannakis S a w a Demetriou and Another who were convicted on the 23rd May, 1988 at the Assize 25 Court of Limassol (Criminal Case N o . 6544/88) on one count each of the offence of burglary and theft contrary to sections 294(a) and 20 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154 and on a number of counts of the offence of carrying a shot-gun contrary to sections 7(l)(a)
(6)(a) and 2 8 of the Firearms Law, 1974 (Law 38/74) and 30 were sentenced by Chrysostomis, P.D.C., Anastassiou, S.D.J, and N. Nicolaou, D.J. as follows: Accused 1 to four years' imprisonment on the first count and to one year's imprisonment on each of the other counts;Accused 2 totwo years' imprisonment on the first count and to one year's imprisonment on each of the 3 5 other counts, the sentences to run concurrently P. Messaritis, for the appellants. S. Matsas, for the respondent. 176 2 C.L.R. Demetriou v. Republic PIKISJ. gave the following judgment of the Court. This is an appeal against sentence made by two of four co-accused before the Assize Court of Limassol, convicted on a number of related counts of burglary and theft of sporting shot-guns and sequential 5 illegal carrying of the guns. In addition to punishing them for the aforementioned offences the Court took into consideration, on the application of the appellants, a number of similar offences committed by the appellants. The offences were of a similar natureinvolving,primarily,burglariesandtheft ofvaluablesworth 10 considerable amounts. In the case of appellant 2, sixteen such offences were taken into consideration, and four in the case of appellant
- The charges preferred before the Assize Court involved breaking and entering into a petrol station during night time and, stealing therefrom of four sporting guns, the value of 15 which exceeded two thousand pounds. The crime was planned and executed in concert and resulted in the occasion of considerable damage to the owner. The crimes taken into consideration at the instance of appellant 2, again involved the theft of property of considerable value in the region of ten 20 thousand pounds. Less than half was eventually restored to the owners. The offences committed by appellant 1, again involved property of considerable value, exceeding one thousand pounds, of which onlyasmall portion was recovered bythe owners. Notwithstanding theiryouth, aged 19and 20 respectively, they 25 have a burdened record, especially appellant
- His proclivity to ' theft brought him before the courts of law early on in life. His committal to the Reform School had no noticeable effect on his behaviour; nor, regrettably itmust be added, hissentence to two years' imprisonment in 1985 for the commission of similar 30 offences. Appellant 1 isburdenedwithonepreviousconviction on which occasion he was sentenced to afine andbound-over for a period of time to keep the laws. In social investigation reports, submitted before the Assize Court with the consent of the appellants, the personal and family history of both isexplained in 35 some detail.The stealing of property has,as itmay be gathered, become a settled aspect of their life, together with the consumption of narcotics to which they appear to be addicted. Recourse to theft has been, it seems, a way of subsidising their livingexpenses and ill-chosen habits. 40 Counsel fortheappellantsmadereference toanumberof cases 177 Pikis J. Demetriou v. Republic
(1988)(particularly to the cases of loannou and Another v. Police;* Koukos v.Republic;**Sawides v.Republic***) insupport ofthe submission thatyouth isafactor thatmakesitespecially necessary to individualise sentence. Also counsel made reference tothe principles applicable on the sentencing of young offenders referred to and expounded in Sentencing in Cyprus****and Principlesof Sentencing*****. 5 The resolve oftheappellant toreform will notbe enhanced, counsel argued,bylengthyincarceration.Thelikelihoodof reform through themedium ofthe sentence chosen, and the lengthofit, 10 should be uppermost inthe mind of theCourt in dealing with young offenders. Counsel submitted that sentence should be individualised tothe extentnecessary tohelpyoungpersonswho havestrayedfrom thepath earmarkedbythelawtoreform -agoal beneficial to the accused themselves, and society. Probation, 15 counsel added, isacourse often chosen bythecourtsasa means of reform of young offenders. The principles of sentencing relevant to the punishment of young offenders referred toby counsel, find expression ina good number of cases andcan be accepted as a settled aspect of the law.The Court invariably 20 pondersthe reformatory effect that punishment may haveonthe future waysofayoung offender. Nevertheless,ifaparticularspeciesofnoncustodial punishment has failed toproduce theanticipated results,imprisonment is an obvious alternative. Sentencing, it must be reminded, is a 25 compound process that involves thebalancing ofa multitudeof factors, ultimately designed tobesocially beneficial. Everybody stands to gain from thechange of the criminal ways of young membersofsociety.Butfacedwiththeabsenceofanyvisiblesigns of change andlack ofresponse toearlier reformatory sentencing 30 measures, the Court cannot stand idle. Society, too, must be protected and the efficacy ofthe lawmustbe sustained. We cannot overlook what wasnoted bythe Supreme Court in Antoniades v.Police******asasadsocialrealitythathouse-breaking *
(1986)2C.L.R. 149. **{1986)2C.L.R.l. ***
(1987)2C.LR.70. ****(p.37). *****(Thomas,2nded.. p.18). ******
(1986)2C.LR.21 178 2 C.L.R. Demetriou v. Republic PildsJ. andshop-breaking offences haverecentlyassumedproportionsof asocialevil.Indeed, manyoftheculpritsareyoungpersons,afact that makes this reality extremely unpalatable. This is a fact that must be seen in context, in determining whether the sentence 5 imposed on the appellants is, as submitted on their behalf, manifestly excessive. Havingdulyreflected oneveryaspectoftheappeal,wefeelthat thesentence imposed upon appellant2wasinnosense excessive Thesentence imposed onappellant 1,ontheotherhand,islonger 10 than wewould bedisposedtoimposehadwebeen thetrial Court. Butthatisnotareason forinterferingwithsentence.ForthisCourt to intervene, we must conclude that the sentence is manifestly excessive.The element of excessasjudiciallynoticed on previous occasions*mustbe glaring, such as toprovide an objective basis 15 for itsascertainment.ThetrialCourt isthe arbiter ofsentence. Itis uniquelyplacedtoappreciatetheneedsofcriminaljusticeandsee tothe effective application of the law. The sentence imposed on appellant 1,severerthough itisthan what we would be inclined to approve, had we been in the 20 position of the trialCourt, isnot manifestly excessive. It is truly regrettable that young offenders of the age of the appellants have made such a poor start in life. They must appreciate that abiding by the law is not only an obligation to others but also an obligation tothemselves. Else,how could they 25 expect others torespecttheirrights. The appeals aredismissed. *(See,interalia, Philippouv.Republic
(1983)2CLR. 245) 179