Court dismisses appeal against excessive sentence for false documents and fraud, rejecting argument on old prior convictions.
Cipro (CY)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe Supreme Court dismissed Demetrios K. Michaelides' appeal against his six-year sentence for uttering false documents and obtaining money by false pretences. Michaelides argued the trial court unduly considered prior convictions dating back 13 years, but the court found the current offense involved significant planning, multiple forgeries, and a substantial unrecovered sum. Consequently, the court held that even without the prior record, the sentence was not excessive and must run from the date of conviction.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IASections 335, 336, 339, 20 Criminal Code; Section 298 Criminal Code: A sentence is not excessive where the current offense involves complex planning, multiple forgeries, and a significant unrecovered sum, rendering prior convictions irrelevant to the proportionality assessment.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IADecisioni correlate
Generato dall'IATesto completo
[*1208] 1965 November 25
(ZEKIA, P., TRIANTAFYLLIDES, JOSEPHIDES, JJ. )
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Demetrios K. Michaelides,
Appellant,
v.
The Republic,
Respondent.
(Criminal Appeal No.2800).
Criminal Law - Sentence - Appeal against excessive sentence - There can be no finding, in the circumstances of this case, that sentence was excessive - Even if old previous convictions taken into account by trial Court, are left out of consideration.
Charge: Count 1: Uttering a false document contrary to sections 335, 336, 339 and 20 of the Criminal Code, Cap.154.
Count 2: Obtaining money by false pretences contrary to section 298 of the Criminal Code, Cap.154.
Sentence and Date: 6 years' imprisonment on count 1 and 2 years' Imprisonment on count 2; sentences to run concurrently, 19.10.S5.
Nature of Appeal: Appeal against sentence.
Ground of Appeal: Excessive sentence.
Previous Convictions:
1.
18.10.1962
Control of property belonging to the Crown:
6 months' imprisonment.
2.
28.10.1952
Attempting to set fire to goods in a building:
2 years' imprisonment to run after the expiration of the sentence in 1.
3.
6.11.1952
Being a bankrupt failed to keep property books.
9 months' imprisonment.
4.
6.11.1952
Being a bankrupt destroyed books and documents relating to his property
1 year imprisonment. Sentences in 3 and 4 were to run concurrently. [*1209]
L. Papaphilippou, for the Appellant.
S. Georghiades, Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:-
ZEKIA, P.: We have heard your counsel putting forward the grounds for reducing the sentence imposed on you. He made the point that the trial Court has unduly taken into consideration your previous convictions, some dating 13 years prior to your conviction and sentence. But in this particular case, there was a lot of planning and scheming and, also, there was multiple forgery; also, the sum involved was not a trifling one, it was something over £800, and out of this sum nothing was recovered. Even if we leave out of consideration your previous convictions, we would not find that the sentence passed on you was an excessive one. In the circumstances, your appeal is dismissed and your sentence will run as from the date of conviction.
Appeal dismissed.
Sentence to run from the date of conviction.