Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
Nicos Timotheou v. The Police (1965) JSC 41 KI-generiert

Court allows appeal reducing excessive sentence when judge was improperly influenced by prior case.

Geschäftsnummer Nicos Timotheou v. The Police (1965) JSC 41
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Zypern (CY)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Gutgeheissen (Allowed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal against a one-year prison sentence for theft. The trial judge had imposed a harsher penalty because he believed he was misled by lenient representations in a previous case involving the same accused. The court held that the judge could not revise his own sentencing logic based on past errors, ruling the current sentence excessive and reducing it to three months.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Criminal Code Cap.1514 s.262; Criminal Procedure Code Cap.1514 s.270: A judge cannot impose a higher sentence in a new case if they were improperly influenced by a previous case involving the same accused, as this would amount to an unauthorized revision of their prior sentencing decisions.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
excessive sentence appeal improper judicial influence prior case bias same accused history sentencing revision prohibition Vorleben Rückfalltatbestand Begründung einer Praxisänderung

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Criminal Code Cap.1514 s.262
(Charge; Stealing of a wrist watch valued at £10.~ contrary to section 262 of the Criminal Code, Cap.1514.
Criminal Procedure Code Cap.1514 s.270
KI-generiert
Ποινική Έφεση Αρ.: 227/23
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against refusal to suspend prison sentences for burglary and drug offenses.
Έφεση Αρ. 213/2006
Appeal dismissed; successive prison terms for drug possession not excessive under principle of totality.
CY-AAD-meros_2-1981-rep-1981_2_0213
Court dismisses appeal for attempted illegal departure but delays sentence execution due to youth and lack of counsel.
Ποινική Έφεση Αρ. 87/2012
Cypriot Supreme Court dismissed appeal against excessive sentence for theft by deception, upholding proportionality principle.
CY-AAD-meros_2-1970-rep-1970_2_0078
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against five-year burglary sentence citing appellant's 27 prior convictions as justification.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

[*41] 1965 January

(ZEKIA, P., TRIANTAPYLLIDES, JOSEPHIDES, JJ.)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Nicos Timotheou of Paliometocho,

Appellant,

v.

The Police,

Respondents.

(Criminal Appeal No.2751).

Criminal Law - Sentence - Excessive sentence - Trial Judge in imposing sentence improperly influenced by a previous case in which same accused was bound over - Not open to Judge to pass a higher sentence of imprisonment because he thought he was misled in a previous case and treated accused leniently - Otherwise this would amount to revision of sentence passed by the same Judge.

L.N. Clerides, for Appellant.

K.C. Talarides, Counsel of the Republic, for Respondents.

JUDGMENT

ZEKIA, P.: We have considered your case and it appears that the learned Judge in passing sentence on you in the instant case was improperly influenced by a previous case in which you were bound over. In the previous case as it appears from the record, he thought that he was misled by statements made on your behalf in the address for mitigation of sentence and also by the report of the welfare Officer describing you as a person of very good character. [*42] It was not open to the learned judge to pass on you a higher sentence of imprisonment because he thought he was misled in a previous case by misrepresentations and treated you very leniently. Otherwise this would amount to a revision of a sentence passed by the same judge.

In the circumstances we think that the proper course for the judge was not to take into account the previous case, which related to an offence committed after the offence the subject matter of the present case. At any rate the previous case ought not to have been taken either in appellant's favour or against him.

We are of the opinion that in the circumstances the sentence against the appellant should be reduced to three months' imprisonment as from the date of conviction.

Appeal allowed.

Sentence reduced accordingly.

(Charge; Stealing of a wrist watch valued at £10.~ contrary to section 262 of the Criminal Code, Cap.1514.

Sentence and when commencing; 1 year imprisonment, as from 17.12.64.

Nature of appeal; Appeal against sentence).