Imprisonment for child neglect reduced to six weeks to allow father to work and maintain children.
Cipro (CY)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe Supreme Court allowed an appeal against a three-month prison sentence for wilfully neglecting children under Section 54(1) of the Children Law. The appellant, a mason earning £12-15 weekly, had failed to pay maintenance despite a prior undertaking, leading to the original conviction. The court held that a longer sentence was self-defeating as it would prevent the father from working and supporting his family, thus reducing the term to six weeks.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IASection 54(1) of the Children Law Cap. 352; In cases of wilful neglect where imprisonment is longer than necessary, a shorter sentence is preferred to enable the delinquent parent to work and maintain their children.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IADecisioni correlate
Generato dall'IATesto completo
[*1353] 1971 June 8
(TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., STAVRINIDES, HADJIANASTASSI0U, JJ.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Andreas Iacovou,
Appellant,
v.
The Police,
Respondents.
(Criminal Appeal No.3253).
Criminal Law - Sentence - Three months’ imprisonment imposed on father for wilfully neglecting his children - Section 54(1) of the Children Law Cap. 352 - In cases of this nature a sentence of imprisonment may be
self-defeating if it is longer than necessary, because it prevents the deliquent father from working and, therefore,
from being in a position to maintain his children - A rather shorter sentence, six weeks’ imprisonment, held to be sufficient in the circumstances of this case.
Children Law Cap. 352 - Wilfully neglecting one's children - Section 54(l) of the Law - Sentence - Sentence of imprisonment.
The appellant appears in person.
C1. Antoniades, Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents.
JUDGMENT
The. judgment of the Court was delivered by:-
TRIANTAFYLLIDES. P.; In this case the appellant, who is thirty-five years old, was sentenced [*1354] by a District Judge at Limassol to three
months' imprisonment for having, contrary to section 54(1) of the Children Law, Cap. 352, wilfully neglected his five minor
children "in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to their health by failing to provide them with adequate food and clothing".
When he appeared for the first time before the Court, below in relation to this matter, on the 27th March, 1970, the appellant pleaded guilty and undertook to pay £6 per week towards the maintenance of his children; the Court bound him over in the sum of £100 for two years to come up for judgment if and when called upon; and it was stated, as it appears from the Court’s record, that he would not be called upon as long as he continued to pay £6 per week - commencing on the 28th March, 1970 - through the District Welfare Office.
The appellant failed to honour regularly his aforesaid undertaking, although he was earning as a mason between £12 and £15 per week. Eventually, he was taken again before the Court on the 5th May, 1971. At the time the total of the weekly contributions, for the maintenance of his children, which he had failed to pay amounted to £162. The Court regarded him as "incorrigible" and "intentionally" avoiding to maintain his children and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment.
We take the view that the learned trial judge was quite right in sending the appellant to prison as, inter alia, he had to be made to realize that he could not [*1355] disregard with impunity his responsibilities towards his children. On the other hand, in cases of this nature a sentence of imprisonment may be self-defeating if it is longer than necessary, because it prevents the deliquent father from working and, therefore, from being in a position to maintain his children. We are, therefore, inclined to think that a rather shorter sentence, one of imprisonment for six weeks, is sufficient in the circumstances; and we hope that this will be the last time when the appellant, who is otherwise a first offender, appears before a Court for such, or any other, offence.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the sentence is reduced to one of six weeks' imprisonment as from the date when the appellant was sent to prison.
Appeal allowed.