Supreme Court dismisses excessive sentence appeal where prior leniency encouraged repeat felony. Appeal against sentence rejected due to appellant's history. Court refuses interference with sentence despite appeal arguments.
Cipro (CY)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against a five-year sentence for carrying a firearm, rejecting the claim of excessiveness. The appellant argued for leniency, but the court noted that previous leniency after a similar 1962 offense had instead encouraged him to commit another felony. Consequently, the court held that the sentence was not excessive and refused to interfere with the judgment.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IASections 3(l)(2)(a) of the Firearms Law, Cap.57; A sentence is not excessive merely because the appellant has a history of offending, particularly when prior leniency appears to have encouraged further criminal conduct.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IADecisioni correlate
Generato dall'IATesto completo
[*1210] 1965 November 26
(ZEKIA, P., TRIANTAFYLLIDES, JOSEPHIDES, JJ.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Stelios Agathocli,
Appellant,
v.
The. Republic,
Respondent.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2799).
Criminal Law - Sentence - Appeal against excessive sentence - Interference with sentence not permitted, by facts - Leniency extended to Appellant in the past in respect of a similar offence, instead of benefiting, encouraged him to commit felony again.
Charge: Carrying firearm (sten-gun) contrary to sections 3(l)(2)(a) of the Firearms Law, Cap.57, as amended by Law 11 of 1959.
Sentence and Date: 5 years' imprisonment from 13.1 0.1 965.
Nature of Appeal: Appeal against sentence.
Ground of Appeal: Excessive sentence.
Previous Convictions:
1.
18.12.1950
Indecent assault.
B.O. in the sum of £30 for 2 years to come up for judgment.
2.
2.11.1954
Taking part in a fight.
Discharged.
3.
5.5.1955
Assault.
B.O. in the sum of £10 : years to come up for judgment.
4.
24.9.1962
Possessing a revolver.
4 years' imprisonment.
5.
24.9.1962
Possessing explosive substances.
1 year imprisonment. Sentences in 4 and 5 were to run concurrently
6.
27.7.1965
Carrying a revolver to terrorise.
£15.- fine and the revolver was forfeited.
7.
6.9.1965
Assault.
£7.- fine.
8.
6.9.1965
Disturbance.
£3.- fine. [*1211]
R. Constantinid.es, for the Appellant.
A. Frangos, Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: -
ZEKIA, P.: We have heard you counsel on the point of excessiveness of sentence. He ably defended you, but the facts are so much against you that this Court could not interfere with the sentence. Even if the Assize Court had imposed on you a longer sentence, it would have been very difficult for us to interfere with it.
We need not repeat the facts of this case, but a glaring fact against you is that having committed a similar offence in 1962, you went to prison for four years, and you were released in a few months' time, having been treated so generously by the authorities; instead of benefiting from the leniency extended to you, it appears that this treatment encouraged you to commit a felony again. We dismiss your appeal and your sentence is to run from the date of conviction.
Appeal dismissed.
Sentence to run from date of conviction.