Appeal against one month imprisonment for demolition order disobedience dismissed as not manifestly excessive.

[*647] 1967 June 1

(VASSILIADES, P., JOSEPHIDES, LOIZOU, JJ.)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Eleni Demosthenous,

Appellant,

v.

The District Officer, Limassol, as

appropriate authority for Limassol

District,

Respondent.

(Criminal Appeal No. 2924).

Criminal Law - Sentence - Appeal against sentence as being manifestly excessive - One month’s imprisonment for disobedience of a demolition order - Hardship to Appellant’s family - Effective application of the law - Appellant given ample opportunity to comply with demolition order - Appellant's complaint unfounded - Case of The District Officer Nicosia v. Eleni Michael Pittordi (1967) 4 J.S.C. 426, referred to.

Demolition Order - Disobedience of - See under “Criminal Law” above.

Building - Without permit - Demolition order - Sentence - See under "Criminal Law - Sentence" above.

Streets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap.96 - Building without permit

- Demolition order - Sentence - See under "Criminal Law - Sentence” above.

Appellant in person.

A. Prangos, Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:-

VASSILIADES. P.: This is an appeal against a sentence of one month’s imprisonment imposed on the appellant for disobedience of a demolition order, by the District Court of Limassol. The appeal is taken by the [*648] appellant in person, on a formal notice signed by her at the Central Prison, a few days after her admission therein, under the sentence in question. The ground on which the appeal is taken, as stated in the notice, is that the sentence is manifestly excessive.

The appellant is a married woman, the mother of nine children, the youngest of which is about three months old, according to the plea in mitigation put forward by her counsel at the trial. In support of her appeal before us, the appellant has relied mostly on the hardship which the sentence has caused to her family; particularly the younger children. To-day most of the strength of such a plea evaporates considering that in a matter of a few days the sentence imposed by the trial Court shall have been served. In any case considerations of this nature may be taken into account by the Court in measuring sentence, but they cannot override the main purpose of the prosecution, which is the effective application of the law.

It is apparent from the record, that the appellant was given ample opportunity to comply with the demolition order, not only during the period from the making of the order until the filing of the prosecution, but also after appellant’s plea of guilty to the charge on the 17th March, 1967 and the 13th May, 1967 when the sentence was imposed. Apparently for that purpose the Court granted to the appellant three adjournments.

The learned trial Judge went carefully into the matter as it appears clearly from his Judgment; and his approach to the case, particularly the sentence to be [*649] imposed in the circumstances, is, in our opinion, quite correct. He referred for guidance to cases in which the question of sentence was discussed in this Court on appeal; and he had in mind the case of The District Officer Nicosia v. Eleni Michael Pittordi (1967) 4 J.S.C. 426 (Criminal Appeal No.2890; decided on the 13th April, 1967) where on appeal by the prosecutor with the sanction of the Attorney- General under section 137(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Law, against a sentence of £2.- fine for disobedience of a demolition order, this Court set aside the sentence imposed by the trial Court as manifestly inadequate, and substituted it by a sentence of three months imprisonment.

This is sufficient to indicate that appellant's complaint against the sentence of one month’s imprisonment, imposed upon her in this case, is unfounded. Indeed, it is not without some difficulty that we find ourselves able, in the circumstances, to dismiss the appeal without bringing the sentence under consideration, more in line with the sentence in the case just referred to.

In the result, considering all relevant matters in this case, including the fact that appellant’s husband, we are now informed, has carried out the demolition directed in the order, and the fact that appellant’s sentence is due to expire in very few days, we have decided to dismiss the appeal and affirm the sentence, with directions that it should be allowed to run from the date on which it was imposed by the trial Court.

Appeal dismissed.

Sentence affirmed;

to run from the date

imposed by trial Court.