Supreme Court dismisses appeal against conviction for threatening violence and common assault due to ample evidence.

[*666] 1968 June 18

(VASSILIADES, P., TRIANTAFYLLIDES, JOSEPHIDES, JJ.)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Costas Demetriou Kepsis,

Appellant,

v.

The Police,

Respondents.

(Criminal Appeal No.3004)

Criminal Law - Appeal - Conviction - Threatening violence and common assault, contrary to sections 91(c) and 242 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154- - Ample evidence justifying findings of trial Court upon which conviction rested.

Assault - Common assault - See under “Criminal Law” above.

Violence - Threatening violence - See under "Criminal Law”, above.

Appellant in person.

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

JUDGMENT

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: -

VASSILIADES. P.: This is an appeal against conviction, taken by the appellant personally on the form supplied by the Prison Authorities, soon after his admission to the prison. The ground on which the appeal is taken, as stated in the form is the contention that the appellant is innocent of the offence.

Appellant, a man of 58 years of age, was charged in the District Court of Kyrenia, early in May last, of [*667] threatening violence with intent to interfere with the complainant’s rights, contrary to section 91(c) of the Criminal Code (Cap.154); and of common assault contrary to section 242 of the Code. Both offences were alleged to have been committed against a girl of 15 years of age, living in the same village, when she happened to be passing the street outside appellant’s house. The appellant pleaded not guilty to both counts.

The trial Judge heard the evidence of four witnesses called for the prosecution, and of the appellant, who in due course, elected to give evidence for his own defence.

In a short Judgment at the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge made his findings and gave the reasons for which he accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses; and rejected that of the appellant. Upon those findings the Judge convicted the appellant on both counts; and proceeded to consider the question of sentence. In this connection he was informed by the prosecuting officer of the previous convictions of the appellant, which the Judge put to him in due course. They were all admitted by the appellant. The list commences with a conviction for assault in 1931 and continues with a number of convictions at the rate of about three or four a year, to the present day. Taking only the convictions in the last ten years, one finds on the list aggravated assaults, damage to property, larceny and receiving, public insults etc. for which the appellant received fines and terms of imprisonment up to .one year. The last conviction on the list is one for indecency in January,1968, for which the appellant was sentenced to three months imprisonment. [*668]

Taking into consideration the character of the appellant as reflected in the sheet of his previous convictions, and also taking into consideration, on appellant’s request, another pending case against him for threatening his wife (case No. 114/68 D.C. Kyrenia), the learned trial Judge sentenced the appellant to one year’s imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The punishment provided in the Criminal Code for the offences in question is three years’ imprisonment for the offence of threatening contrary to section 91, and one year’s imprisonment for the assault.

After hearing the appellant this morning, we found it unnecessary to call on counsel for the prosecution. Appellant’s case as he presented it to us, was directed against the evidence of the prosecution-witnesses which, according to the appellant, should not have been believed by the trial Judge.

We found no substance whatever in this appeal. We think that the trial Judge had ample evidence before him to make the findings upon which he rested the conviction; and that he was perfectly justified in imposing, in the circumstances of this case a severe sentence. We, therefore dismiss the appeal. In view of the severity in the sentence, however, and the other relevant matters in this connection, we direct under section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Law (Cap.155) that the sentence shall run from the date of conviction.

Appeal dismissed. Directions as to sentence accordingly.

Order in terms.