2 C.L.R. 1988April25 (MALACHTOS,STYUANIDES.PIKIS.JJ.) CHRISTOS CHARALAMBOUS SAWIDES, Appellant, v. THE REPUBLIC, Respondent. (Criminal Appeal No. 4947). 5 Sentence — Housebreaking and theft of £600.- contrary to sections 292(a)and255 oftheCriminal Code — 13similaroffences involving theftof £1,000.- takeninto consideration — Appellant, aged 171/2 at the time of the commission of offences, co-operated with the Police, showed sincere repentance, compensated his victims — Social report showed that the offences were out of appellants character, having been committed at a time the appellant was suffering from emotional stress — Two years' imprisonment — Reduced to oneyear's imprisonment. 20 Sentence—Young offenders — Deterrence must be balanced by interestofsociety in their reform — Theyshould not leave the Court with theimpression thatsociety haswritten them off. The factsof thiscaseappear sufficiently inthe headnote Appeal allowed. Sentences reduced tooneyear's imprisonment. 15 Casesreferredto: Philippouv. The Republic
(1983)2C.L.R. 245; Psylla v. The Republic {1984} 2C.L.R. 420; Nicolaou v. TheRepublic
(1985)2C.L.R. 52; on hannou and Another v. ThePolice
(1986)2C.L.R. 149. 51 S a w i d e s ν,Repuclic
(1988)Appeal against sentence. Appeal against sentence by Chnstos Charalambous Sawides who was convicted on the 6th November, 1987 by the Military Court sitting at Nicosia (Cases Nos 522/87 and 535/87} on one count of the offence of house breaking and stealing contrary to sections 292(
- a)and 255 of the Cnminal Code Cap 154 and was 5 sentenced totwo years' impnsonment Μ lacovou, for the appellant Ρ huhanos, for the respondent MALACHTOS J Thejudgment of theCourtwillbe delivered by Pikis J 10 P1KIS J The appellant was convicted on his own plea on a charge of house breaking and theft of £600 - (contrarytos 292(
- a)and s 255 -Cap 154), and was sentenced by the military courtto two years' imprisonment Inpassing sentence theCourttook into consideration, at the request of the appellant, 13 similar offences 15 involving the theft of a total amount of £1,000 After arrest the appellant readily admitted the commision of the offfence and volunteered information leading thepolice to uncover anddetect the remaining offences Evidently the appellant was overwhelmed by feelings of 20 remorse and a desire to make a clean breast with his cnminal escapades thatbrought himfor thefirst timebefore justice At the time of the commision of the offfences theappellant was aged 17 1/2. He was a consenpt of the National Guard, temporanly released because of stress As a matter of fact he was given leave 25 of absence for oneyear toenable himtocopewith psychological problems thattroubled himafter thebreak up otaloveaffair The reportsproduced before theCourtindicated thatthe commission of the offences was out of the characterof the appellant and that they had been committed at a time when appellant laboured 39 under emotional stress Not only the appellant gave token of his repentance by the admission of the offence and disclosure of details of other cnmes committed by himself, but also made amends tothevictims of his cnmes by returning £1,400 -of the stolen money. Furthermore, hisfamily and himself intendtocompensate theremaining victims by therepaymentofanamountof£200 -Although thetnalCourtdid 52 35 2 C.L.R. S a w i d e s v. Republic PildsJ . direct itself correctly respecting thegravity of offences of housebreaking that recently assumed, because of their frequency, dimensions of a social evil and tothe extenuating circumstances that justified leniency, nonetheless, ths Court felt constrained to impose thefairly long sentence of two years' impnsonment The sentence is challenged only on one ground as manifestly excessive Forthe appellant to succeed it must be demonstrated that the element of excess is glanng and as such objectively noticeable* 10 Counsel for theRepublic argued thatthesentence of two years' impnsonment isin linewith the sentencing policy adoptedby the Supreme Court for the punishment of housebreaking offenders, evidenced by thedecisions inPsylla ν Republic**andNicolaou ν Republic*** Inneitherof theabove cases did theSupremeCourt ,r aim to establish an inflexible norm for the punishment of house breaking, whereas the facts of each of the above cases and circumstances of the offenders are perfectly distinguishable from the corresponding facts of this case A more pertinent decision and one apt to illuminate the 20 sentencing framework for the punishment of young offenders convicted of house-breaking and theft is that of loannou and Another ν Police**** In that case too the Supreme Court was concerned with the punishment ot a youth oi 1 / convicted of shop-breaking and theft The fact that crimes of this nature 25 assumed proportionsof asocial evil*****-« could not obliterate the need to individualize the sentence in light of the youth of the appellant and absence of previous convictions» Significantly, the Courtadded thefollowing «The emphasis laid ondetenenceby the learned tnal Judge was misplaced for in the case of young 30 offenders it must be balanced by the strong interest of society in the reform of the accused» The Military Courtfailed oromittedtoattachtheweight due to the extenuating circumstances stemming from ihe youth of the appellant,his clean record, his repentanceand theamendstothe 35 victims of his cnme The failure of the tnal Court to individualize *Phihppou ν TheRepublic
(1983)2CLR "
(1984)2CLR 420 **'
(1985)2CLR 52 ·"· 11986)2 C LR 149 ""•
(1986)2CLR atp 152 245 250 53 " k l s J- Sawides v.Republic
(1988)the sentence to the extent necessary to reflect the personal circumstances of the appellant, rendered the sentence manifestly excessive entitlingthisCourttointerfere andsetitasideand weso direct. The sentence of one year's imprisonmment is, in our judgment, an appropriatepunishment fortheappellant. Itreflects thegravity oftheoffence andthedutyowedtosocietyto observe the law on the one hand and the interest of the appellant and society inthisreform ontheother.Youngoffenders should never leave the Court with the impression that society haswritten them off. 5 Inthe result the appeal isallowed.Thejudgment oftheMilitary Court is set aside. A sentence of one year's imprisonment is substituted. Appeal allowed. 54 10