Supreme Court increases sentence for public annoyance from 7 to 14 days due to inadequate deterrent effect.

[*912] 1968 August 23

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

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Anastassis Kyprianou,

Appellant,

v.

The Police,

Respondents.

(Criminal Appeal No. 3019)

Criminal Law - Conviction and sentence - Misconduct, contrary to section 188(d) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154 - Annoying female in a public place - Sentence of imprisonment - Deterrent effect - Adequacy.

Criminal Procedure - Sentence - Increase of sentence by the Supreme Court under section 145(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155.

Ch. Loizou, for the Appellant.

M. Kyprianou, Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: -

VASSILIADES. P.: After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, both on the issue of conviction and on the sentence imposed by the trial Judge, we found it unnecessary to call on counsel for the respondent.

As regards the conviction, counsel for the appellant conceded, in the course of the argument, that it was open to the trial Judge to find the facts on which, he based the conviction from the evidence before him. We may ## that we entirely agree with the learned trial Judge that the conduct of the appellant in this case, was sufficient to constitute the offence under section 188(d) of the Criminal Code. [*913]

As regards sentence, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that 7 days imprisonment, in the circumstances of this case, was a manifestly excessive sentence. All that his client did, according to the finding of the trial Judge, learned counsel argued, was to extend his hand towards the leg of a passing female without actually touching her.

The trial Judge’s view, as stated in his Judgment, B was that such a behaviour in a frequented street where people, go with their families or ladies go by themselves to do their shopping, is conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace”; and that in a Cyprus town, it may easily lead to serious trouble. A fine, the trial Judge thought, would not be sufficient punishment in the circumstances of this case, and he passed what he called “a warning sentence” of 7 days’ imprisonment.

We found considerable difficulty in dealing with the question of sentence in this case. One of the objects of sentence is its deterrent effect. The imprisonment imposed may, perhaps, be a sufficient warning to this particular appellant, but we very much doubt whether it can have sufficient deterrent effect on other persons inclined to annoy females in public places. Reluctant as we may be to interfere with a sentence imposed by the trial Judge, we feel that in the circumstances of this case 7 days’ imprisonment is manifestly inadequate. We take the view that it should at least be doubled; and exercising our powers under section 145(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law (Cap.155) we increase the sentence to one of 14 days imprisonment, to run from the date of conviction. [*914]

In the result the appeal against conviction is dismissed and the appeal against sentence results in an increased sentence of 14 days imprisonment from the 20th August, 1968.

Appeal dismissed.

Sentence increased

as stated above.