Supreme Court allows appeal against inadequate fine, imposing six months imprisonment for stealing postal orders while in public service.

[*742] 1967 June

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

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Attorney-General of the Republic,

Appellant,

v.

Costas Lazarou Lazarides,

Respondent.

(Criminal Appeal No.2927).

Criminal Law - Sentence - Appeal against sentence as being manifestly inadequate - Stealing while in the public service - Stealing postal orders - Obtaining money by false pretences - Contrary to sections 255, 264, 267, 297 and 298 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154 - Appropriate sentence - A case calling for a sentence of imprisonment.

Appeals in Criminal Cases- Appeal against sentence as being manifestly inadequate - See tinder "Criminal Law" above. ·

A. Frangos, Counsel of the Republic, for the Appellant.

C. Paraskevas, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:

VASSILIADES. P.: This is an appeal against sentence, filed on behalf of the Attorney-General, on the ground that the sentence of £30 fine, imposed on the respondent in the District Court of Larnaca, for stealing postal matter while employed in the public service, is manifestly inadequate, in the circumstances.

The respondent, a young man of 23, temporarily [*743] employed at the Larnaca Post Office, stole a letter which came into his possession in the course of his employment, and converted into his own use two postal orders of £5 each, contained in the letter.

Investigations at the instance of the sender of the money, traced the postal orders at their origin abroad, and connected the respondent with the offence, as the person who had cashed the postal orders. This was several months after the commission of the offence. On the day following his arrest, the respondent volunteered a statement to the Police where he confessed committing the offence, under financial strain; and, expressing apologies and regrets, the respondent offered to compensate the owner of the postal orders.

Charged on three grounds, (a) for stealing the postal matter in question; (b) for stealing such matter while in the public service; and (c) for obtaining money by false pretences, the accused pleaded guilty to all counts.

The case for the respondent, as presented by his advocate at the trial, was a plea in mitigation, on account of accused's young age, previous conduct, military service with good record, and an earlier case where on discovering bank notes concealed in the pages of a magazine from Africa, the respondent handed over the bank notes (of considerable value) to his superior officer. It was, moreover, urged on his behalf, that young as he was, the respondent was the supporter of his mother and family, whom the father had deserted, and was now abroad. [*744]

The trial Judge, reminding himself that this was a serious offence deserving "very serious punishment", as he put it in his note (page 2E of the record) decided that the "young age of the accused, his good character, and his circumstances" enabled the Court to avoid a sentence of imprisonment; and imposed a sentence of £30 fine, or three months imprisonment in default¿ on count 2; no sentence on count 1 which refers to the same set of facts; and ordered the accused to be bound over in the sum of £100 for two years to come up for judgment if called upon, on count 3. The Judge, moreover, made an order for the payment of £10,- compensation to the complainant, or one month’s imprisonment in default.

Learned counsel on behalf of the Attorney-General submitted in this appeal, that notwithstanding the mitigating circumstances pertaining to the accused, (which apparently influenced the learned trial Judge in reaching his

decision) the sentence imposed for an offence of this nature was manifestly inadequate.

On behalf of the respondent, his advocate this morning put forward a well balanced plea in support of the sentence imposed by the trial Court; and stressed again the social and other reasons for which this young man should be spared a sentence of imprisonment.

Giving the matter our best consideration, we find ourselves unable to allow the sentence imposed, to remain on record. The offence of which the respondent was convicted, on his own plea, carries a punishment of 7 years imprisonment, which indicates sufficiently the [*745] intention of the legislator regarding punishment in this kind of offence. This Court has stated time and again the principles Upon which appeals of this nature should he approached. We need hardly refer to any specific cases; but we may mention The Attorney-General v. Neophvtos Nicola Vassiliotis and Another. Criminal Appeal 2870, (1967) 2 J.S.C. page 187, at page 190.

We are unanimously of the opinion that this is a case which calls for a sentence of imprisonment. But in measuring the term, we met with considerable difficulty; particularly from the mitigating circumstances emanating from accused’s good record in the past, and his young age. The most lenient sentence

which we can impose in this case, is six months imprisonment from today. We hopo this will not be taken as laying down any

sort of precedent for the punishment of such offences, the nature of which is, indeed, very serious.

The appeal is allowed; the sentences imposed in the trial Court on counts 2 and 3 are set aside; a sentence of six months imprisonment is imposed on the respondent, on each of these counts, to run concurrently, from today. The order for compensation remains in force. Judgment and order accordingly.

Appeal allowed.

Judgment and order

as aforesaid.