Criminal appeal dismissed; 15-year sentence for homicide not excessive despite mitigating circumstances.

[*1450] 1968 December 19

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

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Christofis Demetris Hourris,

Appellant,

v.

The Republic,

Respondent.

(Criminal Appeal No. 3047).

Criminal Law - Sentence - Sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for homicide contrary to section 205 of the Criminal Code Cap. 154 (as amended by section 5 of Law 3 of 1962) - Not excessive in the circumstances of the Case.

Sentence - See under “Criminal Law”.

Court of Appeal - Approach of Court of Appeal in appeals against sentence.

Appeal against sentence - See under “Court of Appeal’’.

A. Triantafyllides, for the Appellant.

S. Georghiades, Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent.

VASSILIADES. P.: On its legal aspect this appeal presents no difficulty. The approach of this Court to an appeal against sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive, has been stated in a number of cases [*1451] and is now well settled. One of the mast recent cases is Demetriou v. The Police (1968) 10, J.S.C. p. 1149, where reference is also made to earlier decisions. To succeed in his appeal, the appellant has to convince this Court that the trial court misdirected itself either on the law or on the facts; or that it allowed itself to "be influenced by matter irrelevant to the sentence. No such submission could be made in this case learned counsel for the appellant attacked the sentence of the trial court on the ground that it is manifestly excessive in the circumstances.

We find ourselves unable to accept this submission. The trial court have taken into consideration all mitigating circumstances. They have taken into account the very great strain under which the appellant committed the crime; they have also taken into consideration the requirements of the law and their responsibility for its application. We certainly do not think that there is anything wrong in their sentence; and we dismiss the appeal.

We do not find it necessary to go again into the facts. They are sufficiently stated in the Judgment of the Assize Court. Apparently learned counsel for the prosecution accepted on behalf of the Attorney-General a plea of guilty on a homicide charge instead of that of premeditated murder, having regard to the emotional strain under which this particular man, an unfortunate, crippled and uneducated person, has committed the crime. It may be that the facts of this case raise a social problem. It may be that they also raise a legal problem for consideration against the background of the moral code in this country in connection with conduct such as that [*1452] of the victim's husband. It may be that if this father felt that the law would call on the man who unscrupulously violated his home and his only daughter, to answer for his conduct, he (the father) might, perhaps, vindicate his family honour through the law and not with his gun. But all these matters are not for the Court to consider at this stage. We commend them to the attention of the appropriate authority who may have to deal further with this unfortunate man and his family of mostly minor children. In this Court we have to decide the appeal Before us, on the law as it stands. And as we have already said, we must dismiss the appeal. We affirm the sentence as from the date of the conviction.

Appeal dismissed.

Order accordingly.

N.B. The short facts of the case were: - Rumour in the village had appellants only daughter, an unmarried girl aged 19, as expecting a child by a young had character in the village, with a wife and four minor children. In answer to her father's questions, the daughter confirmed the rumour, stating that she was in the 5th month of pregnancy. The father thereupon prepared his sporting gun with big-size shot and went to find the culprit. Seeing him coming from the fields on his tractor with his wife by his side, the appellant an illiterate crippled shepherd, concealed himself behind some trees and when the tractor approached, he fired at the culprit killing the wife instead. He then chased the husband who was running away firing some more shots at him which wounded him. The appellant then went to the village authority and handed himself up, stating what had happened.