Court allows appeal reducing excessive sentence when judge was improperly influenced by prior case.
Cipro (CY)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe 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.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IACriminal 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.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IADecisioni correlate
Generato dall'IATesto completo
[*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).