Court affirms lenient sentence for explosives possession, citing bad record and national security threat.
Cipro (CY)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against a fifteen-month prison sentence for unlawful possession of explosives. The appellant argued for sentence reduction to facilitate reform, but the court noted his prior convictions and antisocial behavior. Consequently, the court affirmed the original sentence as appropriate given the danger explosives pose to national well-being.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IACriminal Law; Explosives Act: Illicit possession of explosives constitutes a menace to national well-being, warranting severe treatment of repeat offenders despite leniency, and appeals for sentence reduction based on reform potential are dismissed when the offender's record indicates an unchangeable antisocial attitude.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADecisioni correlate
Generato dall'IATesto completo
[*203] 1972 March 10
(TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., STAVRINIDES, L. LOIZOU, JJ.)
APPELIATE JURISDICTION
Andreas Michael Lokatzis,
Appellant,
v.
The Republic,
Respondent.
(Criminal Appeal No. 3320).
Criminal Law - Sentence - Fifteen months’ imprisonment for unlawful possession of explosives - Illicit possession of explosives a menace to well-being of the country - Need to treat with severity those who still go on keeping explosives illegally after repeated appeals by the Government for their surrender – Appellants bad criminal record - Sentence not excessive but a lenient one - Affirmed.
Explosives - Possession - Sentence - See, also, under “Criminal Law”.
Appellant appears in person.
S. Nicolaides, Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Court was delivered by:
TRIANTAFYLLIDES. P.: The appellant has [*204] appealed against a sentence of fifteen months imprisonment imposed on him by an Assize Court in Larnaca in respect of the offence of unlawfully possessing explosives, viz. 72 rounds of ammunition.
In our view the sentence passed on him is not excessive, hut, on the contrary, lenient, because, as often pointed out by this Court, and also stated by the trial Court in its judgment, illicit possession of explosives is a menace to the well-being of the country, especially at difficult times such as the present. There have been repeated appeals by the Government for the surrender of explosives illegally possessed and so those who still go on keeping them, without lawful authority, have to be treated with severity.
The appellant has asked us to reduce his sentence in order to give him a last chance to become a good citizen. Although he is rather young in age, being 28 years old, he is burdened with a quite bad criminal record. He has a conviction for a similar offence in 1965, for which he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. After he was released from prison in 1969, he has been twice convicted, in 1970 and in 1971, of offences clearly indicating an antisocial attitude.
The social investigation report, which was produced before the trial Court, shows that the appellant developed such an attitude due to an unfortunate childhood; but it does seem that he has reached a stage where reform by means of his own efforts is not possible. If he really has decided to change his way of life the institutional treatment which he is going [*205] to receive while serving his present sentence will help him to become able not only to mean well but to do well, too. We see no reason at all to interfere with the sentence appealed from, and as we do think that this is an appeal which was made without good reason we have to allow the law to take its course and so v/e make no special order that the sentence should run from when it was imposed; therefore it will run from today.
Appeal dismissed.