(1988)1988February 15 (A LOIZOU,SAW1DES, PIKIS, Jd ) 1.CHRISTOSSAWA MATHIKOLONI, 2 STEPHANOSSOFOCLEOUS, Appellants, ν THE POLICE, Respondents {CriminalAppeals Nos. 4967 &4968) Sentence --Riot, contrary to sections 70, 72 and 20 of the Criminal Cod·· Cap 154 andcommon assaultcontrarytosection 242 of the san,': code — Offences stemming from dctof hooliganism dunng a footoall match — Appellant No 1,a builder,25 years of age, with dean iccord — Four months' impnsonment for the not and three months' for the assault—Notmanifestly excessive 5 Sentence —Assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty contrary to section 244
(6)of the Cnminal Code, Cap. 154 — Offence stemming from act of hooliganism during a football match —Appellant No. 2,ayoung manof 19,withcleanrecord— 10 Five months' imprisonment — Notmanifestly excessive The first appellant, a builder of 25 yearsofage withclean record, was sentenced for theoffences of riot and common assaulttothe aforesaid termsofimpnsonment,sentences torun concurrently.The second appellant, a young man of 19 with clean record was 15 sentenced for assaulting a police officer to the aforesaid term of imprisonment. The above offences stemmed from acts of hooliganism duringa football match. Held, dismissing theappeals *™ incidents of hooliganism that appear withdisturbing frequency in our football grounds have to be stopped and those, who cannot control themselves, should realizethat there is aseverepnce tobe paid for their misconduct. Appeals dismissed. 22 2 CX.R. Mathikoloni v. Police Appealsagainst sentence. Appeals against sentence by Christos Sawa Mathikoloni and Another who were convicted on the 8th January, 1988 at the DistrictCourt of Lamaca {CriminalCaseNo.8179/87) as follows: 5 Appellant 1 on one count of the offence of taking part in a riot contrarytosections70,72and 20ofthe CriminalCode Cap. 154 and on one count of the offence of common assault contrary to section 242oftheCriminalCodeandappellant2onone countof theoffence ofassaultingapoliceofficer contrarytosection 244(b) 10 of the Code and were sentence to 4 months' and 3 months' imprisonment {appellant 1) and to 5 months' imprisonment (appellant2). Appellantsappeared in person. Gl.HadjiPetrou,forthe respondents. i5 20 A. LOIZOU J. gave the following judgment of the Court. The two appellants were prosecuted with two others, before the DistrictCourtof Lamaca foroffences whichstemmed from actsof hooliganism during a foot-ball match between «ANORTHOSIS» Club, of Famagusta and «AEL»Club,of Umassol, that was taking placeatAntonisPapadopoulos Stadium on the 10th May, 1987. It appears that this match had great Importance in the championship results for «AEL».On account of that itattracted a far greater number of supporters of that club than of «ANORTHOSIS». The supporters of «AEL» were mainly 25 occupying the wooden stands on the west side of the stadium to the left of the place reserved for officials, whereas the supporters of «ANORTHOSIS» were occupying the stands beyond them. Thus the two sections were forming an angle of almost ninety degrees. There were on duty at that point twelve policemen 30 under the command of Chief Inspector A. Elias. Five minutes before the conclusionofthematchand whilsttheresultwas three goalsto one infavour of «ANORTHOSIS», aboutfiftysupporters of «AEL»amongthem the appellantscame down from the stands they were occupying and proceeded towards the yard of the 35 stadium and started shouting, gesticulating and throwing stones, they rashed towards the stand where the supporters of «ANORTHOSIS» were and they started hittingthem. Atthe same timeflagswereloweredfrom theirpolesand burntand the Police calledreinforcements. Thefirstappellant wasamongthose taking 23 A. Loizou J. Mathikoloni v. Police
(1988)part intheriotand healsoassaulted unlawfully, unknown persons, whereas the second appellant assaulted Police Constable Mavris in the due execution ofhisduty. The lirst appellant was found, on his own plea guilty of taking part in a riot contrary tosections 70, 72, and 20 of the Criminal 5 Code, Cap 154 and of common assault contrary tosections 242 of the Code. He wassentenced to four months' imprisonment on the first count and three months' imprisonment on the second count, sentences to run concurrently. The second appellant was found, on hisown plea guilty of the 10 offence of assaulting a police officer in the due execution of his duty contrarytosections244(b)oftheCodeandhewassentenced to live months' impnsonrneni Tht hrts placed before theleaned tnalJudge gavemdetailthe circumstances under which the offences with which the two r 15 appellants and indeed the two other persons charged with them. There w£s a dispute, however, as to who provoked the incidents and evidence on that issue was rightly heard being a matter relevant *o mitigation. The lea-ned trial Judge also heard from counsel appearing on 20 behalf of the two appellants all that had to be said in mitigation relating to the peisonal circumstances of each of them They are both first offenders and of young age. The first appellant is a builder, twenty-five years of age and the second appellant a soldier nineteen years of age, facts noted by the learned trial 25 Judge, and rightly so in our view. In passing sentence, however, he stressed the fact that foot-ball grounds should be placesof fair competition and not battle grounds and placesofvandalism, and further noted that such incidentsare frequently occurringinrecent years and that was a factor not tobe ignored by the Courts. 30 We have heard both appellants inmitigation whostressed their youngageand referred totheirpastgood conduct aswellastothe possible delaythatthetermof imprisonment mayhave inthe case of the second appellant in his proceeding abroad for higher studies. We have, however, come to the conclusion that the 35 sentences imposed on them are not manifestly excessive, in the circumstances, justifying the interference of thisCourt on appeal. We fully endorse the approach of the learned trial Judge that incidentsof hooliganism that appear with disturbing frequency in our foot-ball grounds have to be stopped and that those who 40 24 2 C.L.R. 5 Mathikoloni v. Police A. Loizou J . cannot control themselves should realize that there is a severe price to be paid for their misconduct. Sportsmanship carrieswith ittheelementofbeingagentleman andnotahooliganand decent behaviour should be the rule and not the exception, during such athletic events. .Forallthe above reasonsthe appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed. 25