Court allows appeal against short prison term, increasing disqualification to six months for careless driving without insurance.

[*144] 1970 January 23

(VASSILIADES, P., JOSEPHIDES,

STAVRINIDES, JJ.)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Savvas. Lazaron,

Appellant,

v.

The Police,

Respondents.

(Criminal Appeal No.3146).

Criminal Law - Sentence - Concurrent

sentences of one month imprisonment for offences against section 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Law Cap. 333 and Law 7/60,

sections 3 and 6 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law Cap. 332 and Regulations 27(1), 50(n) and 66 of the Motor

Vehicles Regulations 1959-1969 - Appellant

first offender - Pine of £50 an

appropriate sentence.

Road Traffic - Disqualification - Is

part of the sentence - Disqualification order for three months for using motor

Vehicle on a road, without third party insurance - Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Law Cap. 333 and Law 7/60 - Manifestly

inadequate in the circumstances of the case - Increased to six months.

Sentence - Sentence of imprisonment

- When to he resorted to - Deterrent effect in public interest and protection - Careless driving, and driving without

insurance cover.

Disqualification - Disqualification

Order - See under Road Traffic.

L. Papaphilippou, for the Appellant.

C. Antohiades, Counsel of the

Republic, for the Respondents.

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 [*145] appellant in the District Court

Nicosia, for using a motor

vehicle on a public road without a third-party insurance, contrary to section 3

of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Law, Cap. 333, and Law 7/1960. The appellant was, moreover, disqualified from holding a driving

licence for three months. The same term of imprisonment running concurrently,

was imposed on the appellant, on three other counts in the same charge, arising

out of the same road accident. These were for driving with an expired licence;

driving without due care and attention; and driving with defective brakes. All

counts were preferred under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles

Regulations 1959 to 1969 and the lot or Vehicles and Road Traffic Law, Cap. 332. The

appellant pleaded guilty to all these counts;

and was convicted accordingly.

The short facts of the case are that

the appellant, a quilt-maker, of 32 years of age, having decided to change trade, acquired a lorry and

became an owner-driver. Sometime later, and before he had his papers in order,

the appellant while driving the lorry in question on the main Nicosia- Limassol

road, attempted to overtake another vehicle by violating the while traffic line on a right-hand bend and came up against a car

travelling in the opposite direction. The two vehicles collided (fortunately

without very serious consequences) and when the traffic police investigated the

matter they collected the evidence upon which the appellant was charged and

convicted as stated above. [*146]

The trial Judge taking the view that

driving without insurance

cover was a "very serious offence", becoming

alarmingly prevalent, imposed a sentence of one month's imprisonment on each count concurrently,

together with a disqualification

for three months. Disqualification being part of the sentence, (see Panaviotis

Efstathiou Mirachis v. The Police, (1965) 3, J.S.C. 278; Drakos v. The Police (1969) 1 J.S.C. 127), Once a

sentence is opened by the appeal, the whole matter comes under consideration.

Disqualification, in a proper case,

is a useful and drastic

punishment; and should be duly and carefully considered in all

cases where the circumstances require or permit its use. In the case before us we think that the circumstances call for a disqualification

order; but the period of

three months is, we think, manifestly inadequate in this particular case. It should be at least twice as much; and we increase it accordingly.

Coming now to the imprisonment,

speaking for myself, I find

no justification for the short term imposed, in the circumstances

of this case; when no other form of sentence can fit the circumstances of a case (including those pertaining to

the accused), imprisonment has to be resorted to; and in such a case must be measured on the considerations attaching to

such sentence. The matter was discussed from time to time in several cases, one of which is the Mirachis case refer-red to above. As pointed out in

that case, for more than one

reasons, very short terms are rarely justified upon any of the purposes which a sentence of

imprisonment is intended to

serve [*147]

In the circumstances of this case,

and dealing with a person of the character of the appellant, we think that a

fine of £50.-, together with a disqualification order for six months, is an

appropriate sentence.

JOSEPHIDES, J.: I agree but I would like to add that what weighed most with me in setting aside - not without some

hesitation - the sentence of imprisonment in this case was the fact that the

appellant was a first offender, in addition to the other facts of the case.

I should state, however, that having

regard to the increasing number of motor-car accidents, which are now a daily

occurrence, we have reached a stage where, save in exceptional circumstances, the only deterrent

punishment in the public interest and protection would appear to be a sentence

of imprisonment in the case of careless drivers who endanger human life or who

still fail to take out an insurance against third-party risks.

STAVRINIDES, J.: I agree to the result, although not without some reluctance in so far as the imprisonment is set

aside.

VASSILIADES P.: In the

result, appeal against sentence

allowed. Sentence on count 14 varied to one of £50.- fine payable within one

month, or three months imprisonment in default. Moreover, appellant

disqualified from holding a driving licence for six months from to-day. No

sentence on the other counts.

Appeal allowed in part.