Supreme Court dismisses appeal allowing appellant to abandon it, noting severe penalties for illegal machine-gun carrying.

[*228] 1965 March 5

(VASSILIADES, TRIANTAFYLLIDES, JOSEPHIDES,JJ)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Pieris Georghiou Trikomitis of Morphou now of Argaki,

Appellant,

v.

The Republic,

Respondent.

(Criminal Appeal No.2756).

Criminal procedure - Appeal - leave to abandon Appeal as if notice had been given under section 142 of the Criminal Procedure Law Cap. 155.

Firearms - Carrying an automatic machine-gun, contrary to the Firearms Law, Cap. 57 (as amended) - Punishment provided by law an indication of the seriousness of this offence.

Courts - Responsibility for sustaining and properly applying the law rests principally with the Courts - If the Courts will flinch from such duty the harm done is grave and far-reaching.

G. Tornaritis, for the Appellant.

M. Spanos, Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Korfiotis (on behalf of Mr.Tornaritis) applied for leave to the appellant to abandon his appeal which originated on a notice [*229] signed by the appellant personally while in prison, on the form supplied by the prison authorities, without legal assistance. The appellant after consultation with his lawyer now wished to abandon the appeal.

Mr. Spanos had no objection.

Court: In the circumstances, we have decided to grant leave as required, to enable the appellant to abandon his appeal at this stage, as if he had given notice under section 142, of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap.155; and so this appeal will stand dismissed, with an order under section 147(1) for the sentence to run from the date of conviction.

We wish, however, to add for the information of the appellant and of all those connected with the possession of prohibited firearms, that in our opinion the appellant was very wisely advised to abandon his appeal against this sentence of 18 months imprisonment for the carrying of an automatic machine-gun in his lorry, contrary to section 3(1)(b) and 3(2) of the Firearms Law, Cap. 57. (As amended by Law 11 of 1959).

The punishment which the law provides for this offence is ten years imprisonment with or without a fine of £800. This clearly indicates the seriousness attached by law to this offence. The law of Cyprus is now in the hands of its Legislative Authority, the House of Representatives, elected by the people. Such law, emanating from the people, for their own well-being and for the good government of their country, must be respected and vigorously sustained by all.

But the main responsibility for sustaining the law, and for its proper application at all times, rests [*230] principally with the Courts. If the Courts will flinch from their duty in the application of the law, the harm done is grave and far-reaching.

Soon after the establishment of the Republic, repeated appeals were made by the Government for the handing over of all arms to the State authorities. Unfortunately many persons in Cyprus turned a deaf ear to those appeals. In a case in 1961, where three young men who claimed to have been members of E.O.K.A. displayed their pistols at Makheras Monastery - for boasting more than anything else - this Court increased a sentence of £25·- fine imposed by the Assize Court, to one of six months imprisonment with a clearly expressed warning as to the seriousness of such offences. The views of the Court of Appeal in that case (Criminal Appeal 2331 - The Attorney-General of the Republic v. Kyriacos Nicola Kouppis and others, decided in June 1 961 and reported in C.L.R., (1961) p.188) as reflected in the judgments, were duly circulated at the time, and may be found in the Law Reports of that year:

"The offence of carrying arms is admittedly a very serious one, (it was said in that case at p.198). The Appropriate Authority in the Country have legislated to this effect. As we all know, unfortunately, they had very good reasons for doing so. The Courts of the Island have time after time expressed themselves to the effect that in the eye of the law these are serious cases; and gave warning to all concerned of the serious consequences that the illegal carrying or using of such weapons may have. They gave sentences of imprisonment, [*231] invariably coupled with strongly worded warnings. The general public have so frequently before their eyes the most undesirable conditions created by the carrying of arms by unauthorised persons. Every one knows that the possession and use of these arms is not only dangerous to individual members of the public, but it strikes at the very roots of the existence and the reputation of our young State. And yet there are persons who persist in possessing and using arms for their own purposes".

Unfortunately, - most unfortunately, one may think - this warning remained unheeded and the severity of the law, remained mostly on the statute book. The unlawful possession of arms continued; and the sentences of the trial-courts, apart of words, contained very little deterrent substance. The consequences are new there; so glaring and so grave as to need no description from this Bench.

And yet in February, 1965, the Assize Court of Famagusta for the carrying of an automatic sub-machine-gun, locally made, imposed on the appellant a sentence of only 18 months imprisonment; which the appellant in his notice described as "excessive".

We looked into the facts to see what were the extenuating circumstances which justified the Court in reducing the sentence provided by law, to the term of 18 months, imposed. The explanation put forward by counsel on behalf of the appellant, was that "last July he was fired at at the Turkish "village of Fasoula ........ and he thought that by keeping a gun or something like that ......he would [*232] be safer" in his journeys from Paphos to Famagusta for the transport of goods in his lorry; as though the defence and protection of this State's citizens should not be left to its security forces, (including an army now) but has to be undertaken individually by the carrying of military weapons, such as the one in this case. We find this suggestion as utterly unacceptable; and as rather an aggravating mentality, than a mitigating circumstance, in connection with sentence. Nor is the fact that the accused was not found to be carrying ammunition at the time, a satisfactory proof that he did not intend to provide himself, in due course, with the means to use effectively the arm which he was carrying.

We found it necessary to go into this length in the present case, in order to express our anxiety for the way in which the Firearms Law is being enforced and applied by the Courts of first instance, especially in the present circumstances; and in the hope that counsel conducting prosecutions will always lay stress on the gravity of this type of offence, as pointed out above, and will not fail to bring immediately to the notice of the Attorney-General of the Republic with a view to an appeal, sentences manifestly inconsistent with the intention of the legislature as expressed in the relative statutory provision. Need we say more?

As he must have now realised, the appellant was very wisely advised to abandon his appeal against sentence, which will now stand dismissed with an order under section 147(1) as stated earlier.

Appeal dismissed.

Sentence to run from

date of conviction.