Supreme Court dismisses appeal against excessive sentence for young offender with prior record and desertion history.

[*1504] 1971 July 9

(TRIANTAPYLLIDES, P., STAVRINIDES, HADJIANASTASSIOU, JJ.)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Costakis Michael Christofi,

Appellant,

v.

The Police,

Respondents.

(Criminal Appeal No. 3259).

Criminal Law - Sentence - Three years' imprisonment for breaking and entering an office and committing a felony therein - Imposed on a rather young offender (aged 22) - Challenged as being excessive - Seriousness of offence - Appellant’s previous criminal record showing that this is not a proper case in which to impose any other more lenient punishment - Moreover appellant cannot benefit from any other kind of disciplined life - Appeal dismissed.

Young Offenders - Sentences of imprisonment - Reform - Desirability of giving to rather young offenders like appellant (aged 22), as far as this can be properly done, opportunities of reforming themselves otherwise than through long terms of imprisonment.

Sentence - Sentences of imprisonment

- Young offenders.

The Appellant appears in person.

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

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the Court was delivered by:-

TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P, : The appellant appeals against the sentence of three years' imprisonment which [*1505] was imposed on him by the District Court in Limassol after he had pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking and entering an office and committing a felony, viz. theft, contrary to section 294(a) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154; the office in question was that of a petrol filling-station; the appellant broke into it at night-time and stole therefrom the amount of £7.-

The appellant has contended today that his sentence is excessive.

He is twenty-two years old and it is most regrettable to see a young man in such a predicament. Unfortunately, in addition to the seriousness of the offence which he has committed, his previous criminal record shows that this is not a proper case in which to impose any other, more lenient, punishment: On the 25th October, 1968, the appellant was sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment for breaking and entering a shop and stealing therefrom and on that occasion no less than seven other similar offences were taken into consideration. Then, on the 7th February, 1969, he was sentenced, in respect of two other offences of exactly the same nature, to eighteen months' imprisonment.

Furthermore, the appellant does not seem to be a person who can benefit from any other kind of disciplined life; he committed the present offence while he was serving in the National Guard, from which he had deserted repeatedly in the past with the result that he had, eventually, to be sentenced, by a Court Martial, to imprisonment. [*1506]

Though it is, indeed, very desirable that rather young offenders, like the appellant, should be given, as far as this can be properly done, opportunities of reforming themselves otherwise than through long terms of imprisonment, this is not a ease in which such a course can be adopted.

In the light of the foregoing, as well as of all other relevant considerations, we cannot regard the sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court as being either manifestly excessive or wrong in principle so as to call for our intervention.

This appeal is, therefore, dismissed; but as the appellant appealed from the Prisons without legal advice his sentence should run from the date of his conviction.

Appeal dismissed.