Supreme Court dismisses appeal against sentence for disorderly conduct, ruling it not manifestly excessive despite prior convictions.
Zypern (CY)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against a 15-day imprisonment sentence for disorderly conduct. The appellant argued the trial judge improperly focused on prior convictions and ignored mitigating factors like the appellant's age and lack of violence. The court held that the words spoken constituted insults and the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the circumstances.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiertSection 188(d) of the Criminal Code; Section 188(d) of the Criminal Code; The sentence imposed by a trial court is not manifestly excessive merely because the judge considered the accused's previous convictions, provided the sentence fits the nature of the offence and the facts of the case.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertVolltext
[*263] 1965 March 16
(ΖΕΚΙΑ, P., VASSILIADES, TRIANTAFYLLIDES, MUNIR, JOSEPHIDES, JJ.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Theophanis Paraskeva of Kato Platres,
now of Prodromos,
Appellant,
v.
The Police,
Respondents.
(Criminal Appeal No.2761).
Criminal Appeal - Sentence - No substance in allegation that trial Judge gave undue consideration to the previous convictions of accused - Sentence imposed by trial Court not manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
Charge: Disorderly conduct contrary to section 188(d) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154.
Sentence and date: 15 days' imprisonment. 10th March, 1965.
Nature of Appeal: Appeal against sentence. (Appeal against conviction was abandoned).
Ground of Appeal:
1. The trial Court in passing sentence on Appellant failed to take into consideration or direct its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before it and/or considered solely the previous convictions of Appellant which unreasonably and/or improperly influenced the mind of the trial Court.
2. The sentence passed upon Appellant is manifestly excessive and/or unreasonable and/or inappropriate having regard to (a) the offence (b) the age of the Appellant (c) the fact that Appellant left the meeting without any incident although he is an elected member of the Improvement Board of Prodromos and had a right to remain at such meeting (d) the words spoken and in the absence of the interested parties (e) the regret expressed and generally the facts and circumstances of this case. [*264]
Previous Convictions:
1/8/1953 taking part in a fight:
£1.050 mils fine.
14/2/1963 threatening violence:
£25.- fine and B.O. £50.- for 2 years to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
14/2/1963 assault common:
£7.- fine.
" " " public insult:
£3.- fine.
18/12/1963 disturbance:
£12.- fine and previous recognizance to remain in force.
A. S, Myrianthis, for the Appellant-
M. Spanos, Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent,
JUDGMENT
ZEKIA, P.: We have heard your counsel carefully. The main ground of appeal was that the trial Judge has given undue consideration to the previous convictions of the appellant and lost sight of the nature of the offence and the facts accompanying it. It is clear that the words uttered by you, no doubt very loudly, amounted to insults to the Improvement Board of Prodromos which met under the chairmanship of the District Officer, In the circumstances, we do not think that the sentence imposed on you by the trial Judge was manifestly excessive. We think, therefore, that your appeal should be dismissed. Your sentence of imprisonment, however, will also cover the breach of your recognizance.
The sentence to run from the date of conviction.
No proceedings should be taken against you for the breach of recognisance.
Appeal dismissed.
Sentence to run from date
of conviction and. to cover
breach of recognizance as well.