Court reduces five-year sentence to four years for drug possession and export attempt due to co-defendant leniency.

[*1276] 1971 July 1

(TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P. , HADJIANASTASSIOU, A. LOIZOU, JJ.. )

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Georghios Loizou,

Appellant,

v.

The Republic,

Respondent.

(Criminal Appeal No. 3257).

Criminal Law - Sentence - Five years’ imprisonment for possessing a narcotic drug and for attempting to export such drug - Sections 5(l), 6, 22(2), 24 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs Law 1967 (3/67) and Regulations. 5 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs Regulations 1967 - Use of Narcotics a social problem - Appellant's co-accused given lighter sentences

- Wrong in principle to differentiate so much regarding punishment particularly in view of the fact that appellant provided police with information leading to the arrest of co-accused - Sentence reduced in the light of the foregoing and also of the fact that appellant is a first offender and a man of low intellect.

Per curiam: We take the view that, in the interest of the effort to fight crime, persons who have committed offences together with others should be encouraged to help the police to discover their accomplices; and they can be so encouraged by relatively less severe than otherwise sentences.

M. Aziz, for the Appellant.

A. Frangos, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

The following judgment was delivered by;-

TRIANTAFYLLIDES. P.: The appellant appeals against the sentence of imprisonment for five years [*1277] which was imposed on, him by an Assize Court after he had been found guilty, on his own plea, of the offences of possessing, without the authority of the Director of Medical Services, a narcotic drug, viz. 6 kilos and 910 grams of cannabis sativa, and of attempting to export such drug, without a permit from the Minister of Health, contrary to the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs Law, 1967(3/67) and of the Narcotic Drugs Regulations, 1967.

The salient facts of the case, as they appear from the reasons given by the trial Court in passing sentence, are that a certain Georghios Makrides (who was a co-accused of the appellant) discovered a sack in an orange grove containing what appeared to be a vegetable substance. On inquiring regarding the nature of such substance he found out that it was cannabis sativa and realizing that he was in possession of a "treasure" he tried to enrich himself by selling it; through intermediaries he was brought into contact with the appellant who was looking for cannabis sativa and, eventually, he sold to him the whole quantity for £155. Makrides, in his endeavour to find a buyer, had enlisted the services of a certain Petros Athanassi (another co-accused of the appellant) who, though being hesitant at the beginning, later on yielded to the incitement.

The appellant on taking delivery of the said quantity tried to export it secretly to England, by packing it into two drums and taking precautions that it would not be discovered what the drums contained; but the drums were [*1278] opened, and the nature of their contents was discovered, by the Customs authorities at Famagusta.

We would like to praise the vigilance shown by the Customs officers in Famagusta as a result of which there were detected the contents of the drums.

The appellant, when he realized that the enterprise had failed, left in a hurry for England for reasons apparently connected with such enterprise, but, later on, he returned to Cyprus and surrendered to the police; and the information which was given to the police by the appellant led to the arrests of his two co-accused, Makrides and Athanassi.

Both these two co-accused were convicted, having pleaded guilty, in respect of counts charging them with possession of the aforementioned quantity of cannabis sativa and with providing another person, the appellant, with such quantity; Makrides was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and Athanassi to two years' imprisonment.

We have duly weighed all that were submitted on behalf of the appellant and we are definitely of the opinion that the sentence imposed on him is severe but not manifestly excessive, especially when it is borne in mind that, in addition to possessing a large quantity of cannabis sativa, he tried to export it to another country at a time when there is being waged a world-wide campaign against the curse of narcotics.

In Cyprus the problem of narcotics is, as it was stressed recently by this Court in the case of Maos v. The Republic (not reported yet)*, becoming a social problem and [*1279] the Courts should deal severely with offences connected therewith. On the other hand, we have come to the conclusion that it was wrong in principle to differentiate so much, regarding punishment, between the appellant and his co-accused, particularly in view of the fact that, after he returned to Cyprus and surrendered to the police, he provided the police with information as a result of which, his co-accused - (one of them being the supplier of the narcotic drug) - were arrested. We take the view that, in the interest of the effort to fight crime, persons who have committed offences together with others should be encouraged to help the police to discover their accomplices; and they can be so encouraged by relatively less severe than otherwise sentences.

In the light of the foregoing, and also of the facts that the appellant is a first offender and a man of low intellect, we have decided to allow this appeal and reduce the sentences of imprisonment, imposed on him in respect of both offences concerned, to sentences of four years’ imprisonment, which shall run concurrently from the date of his conviction.

Appeal allowed.

* Published in this Part at p. 1272 ante.