2 C.L.R. 1988May5 (A LOIZOU. Ρ ,PIK1S.KOURRIS, JJ) NASSE2ABED KANJ, Appellant, v. THE REPUBLIC, Respondent. (Criminal Appeal No. 4978). c Sentence — Robbery contrary to sections282 and 283 of the Criminal Code, Cap.154 — Getting by reason of the commission of the offence agold watchvalued at£8,000, agold chain, valued at£800, clothing, shoes and key to a car— Appellant, a Lebanese, with unfortunate family background andpitiable social circumstances — Four years' imprisonment — No reason for interference with the sentence. The facts of this case appear sufficiently in the hereinabove headnote. 10 Appealdismissed Casesreferredto: PuilenandAnotherv.TheRepublic
(1970)2C.L.R. 13. Appeal against sentence. Appeal against sentence by Nassez Abed Kanj who was 15 convicted on the 5th February, 1988 at the Assize Court of Limassol (Criminal Case No. 28484/87) on one count of the offence of robbery contrary to sections 282 and 283 of the CriminalCode,Cap. 154 and was sentenced by Boyadjis, P.D.C., Anastassiou, S.D.J, and N. Nicolaou, D.J. to four years' 20 imprisonment. Appellant appeared in person. Gl. Hadjipetrou, for the respondent. 71 Kanjv. Republic
(1988)A.LOIZOUP.gavethe followingjudgment oftheCourt.Thisis anappeal againstasentenceoffouryears' imprisonment imposed on the appellant bv the Limassol Assize Court for the offence of robbery, contrary to sections 282 and 283 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154forwhichtheappellantwasfound guiltyonhisownplea. 5 The particulars of the offence as set out in the information are thattheappellant and exaccused 2on the 12thOctober, 1987,in the area of Amathus inthe Limassoldistrict,stole one gold watch withdiamondsof«Cartier»makevalueat£8,000.-,onegoldchain of a value of £800.-, clothing and shoes of avalue of £117.-,the 10 keysofaflatand thekeysofacarworth£3.-,allpropertyof Jeffrey W. R. Oldfield from the U.K. and/or immediately before or after they used violence with a consequence toinjure thesaidJeffrey W. R.Oldfield, with intent to obtain or steal thesaid articles. The facts of the case as they appear in the judgment of Assize 15 Courtarebrieflythese.Theappellantwhoisnineteen yearsof age and hisaccomplice come from Lebanon. Theyarrived inCyprus, metthe complainant on thebeach and apparently the exaccused 2 had developed some kind of homosexual relations with him. They were visiting his flat and they were expecting money from 20 him. They then conceived the plan for the commission of this offence. On the morningofthe 12thOctober, 1987,thei were to leaveCyprus -fifteen daysafter theexpiration oftheirpe nitthey visitedthe complainant wholetthem inwithoutanysuspicion.On the pretext that they were going to show him something under 25 cupboard, he bend and then a struggle ensued, they beated him, they seized the articles in question and they left with the stolen property leaving him behind tied inbed. He managed, however, tofree himself and he informed the Police.The appellant and his accomplice were arrested by the Police at Lamaca Airport, 30 whereupon they admitted having committed the offence. The Assize Court referred to the case of Robert Pullen and Another v. The Republic
(1970)2C.L.R. 13,inwhich two British soldiers aged 20 and 21,without previous convictions had been sentenced to five years' imprisonment for asimilar offence out of 35 the commission of which they only got£7.-from the aged grocer whomtheybeat.Andtherethesentence offiveyearswasreduced tothree. Butthe Courtstressed the need tostopsuch offences by encouraging the Courts to impose sentences with an element of 40 deterrence in them. 72 2 C.L.R. Kanjv. Republic A. Loizou P. We heard the appellant, who comes from Wartorn Lebanon, had an unfortunate family background and pitiable social circumstances. We feel sorry for the situation prevailing in that countrybutatthesametimewecannotallowtheconsequencesof 5 such calamities and social misfortunes to be brought to Cyprus which hasitsown sufferings tohealandcannot have the problems ofother countriesaffect itsorderelywayof life. In the circumstances we find no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed. 10 Forallthe above reasons we dismissthe appeal. Appeal dismissed. 73