Supreme Court quashes trial court's imprisonment for disobeying nuisance order, allowing fine instead.

[*1347] 1971 July 9

(TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., SΤΑVRINIDES, HADJIANASTASSIOU, JJ.)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Petros YeroJemides,

Appellant,

v.

The Municipalityof Nicosia,

Respondent.

(Criminal Appeal No. 3272).

Criminal Law - Sentence - One month’s imprisonment for failing to obey a Court Order directing abatement of a nuisance - Imposed under section 143 of the Municipal Corporations Law, Cap.

240 as re-enacted by section 8 of the Municipal Corporations Law, 1964 (64/64) and amended by section 3 of the Municipal Corporations (Amendment) Law, 1970 (89/70) - Trial Court not empowered to impose sentence of imprisonment thereunder.

Municipal Corporations - Section 143 of the Municipal Corporations Law, Cap. 240 as re-enacted by law 64 of 1964 (supra) and amended by Law 89 of 1970 (supra) - No power to impose sentence of imprisonment thereunder.

Court Orders - Disobedience to Court Orders.

L. Clerides with E. Lemonaris, for the Appellant.

L. Georghiadou (Mrs.), for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the Court was delivered by;-

TRIANTAFYLLIDES. P.: In this case the appellant appeals against a sentence of one month's [*1348] imprisonment imposed on him when he pleaded guilty, on the 3rd July, 1971, to having failed - contrary to section 143 of the Municipal Corporations Law, Cap. 240, as reenacted by section 8 of the Municipal Corporations Law, 1964 (66/64) and amended by section 3 of the Municipal Corporations (Amendment) Law, 1970 (89/70) - to obey a Court Order made on the 19th February, 1971, which directed him to abate a nuisance by evacuating, within one month, an open space which he was using for storing junk.

During the hearing before us it was not disputed that the Court below was not empowered under the said section 143 to impose any sentence of imprisonment; this must have escaped the attention of the trial judge due to the summary way in which, as is obvious from the record, this case was disposed of.

We, therefore, have to set aside the order of imprisonment and sentence the appellant to such punishment as is provided under section 143, which is a fine of up to £3 per day while the disobedience to the Court Order of the 19th February, 1971, continues. The period with which we are concerned is from the 19th March, 1971 - as appellant was bound to obey the order within one month - until today; the appellant has not yet complied with the order but has promised to do so until the end of this month.

It is most important that citizens shall not flout Court Orders and that they should obey them fully and expeditiously; and when they disobey such orders they [*1349] should be duly punished in the interest of law and order. (See, inter alia, Ioannides and The Republic,

(1971) 1 J.S.C. 16).

Having taken into account that the appellant was sent to prison and was detained there for a week without legislative sanction as well as that he is a merchant, fortyfour years old, with a good record in life we have decided to sentence him to pay a fine of 500 mils per day (instead of the maximum of £3 per day) as from the 19th March, 1971, until the 31st July, 1971, and thereafter, if he still fails to obey the Court Order in question, £3 per day until full compliance therewith.

The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside and a fine is imposed as already stated.

Appeal allowed.