Filenews 16 February 2023
The Supreme Court rejected an appeal to mitigate a sentence convicted of the April 19 murder of a 2020-year-old Syrian in Paphos. The Assize Court had sentenced him to 17 years in prison.
As stated in the Supreme Court's decision, the victim had entered into a love affair with the wife of the perpetrator, about which the latter had become aware five days before the murder of the 19-year-old with a knife on the beach of Chlorakas, where the victim had been transferred by the appellant and other persons. His death had resulted from haemorrhagic shock due to the multiple injuries inflicted on him by the appellant with the use of a knife.
The appellant challenged the sentence as manifestly excessive, arguing that the Assize Court did not give due weight to mitigating factors in sentencing and erroneously concluded that there was no provocation on the part of the victim, did not take into account that he at the time of the commission of the crime was in a state of panic, psychological charge, confusion and shame, as a result, he lost his self-control and did not take into account that he acted without any planning and that the murderous knife was accidentally found in another person's vehicle.
The Supreme Court's decision states, inter alia, that despite the established need for a severe and deterrent penalty, in the context of individualizing the sentence, the Assize Court took into account all the mitigating factors put before it and with reference to the relevant case law, stressed that even in serious offences, the duty of the court to individualize the sentence does not fade and its duty deals with each case on the basis of its facts and each accused according to his circumstances.
In this context, he counted for the benefit of the appellant, that at the time of the commission of the offence he was under the state of psychological burden, due to the love affair of the victim with his wife, his family and personal circumstances, as they emerged through the report of the Welfare Office, his absence of a criminal record, his young age (23 years) and finally his admission to the court, which, as he pointed out, justified a discount on his sentence.
"It is our judgment that the Assize Court carefully and correctly weighed every relevant factor and took into account any evidence which was in the appellant's interest. And his conclusion that the facts of the case do not give rise to provocation, in its legal sense, on the part of the victim, is considered to be correct. As he pointed out and took seriously, the victim's love affair with the appellant's wife was the cause of the psychological charge under which he acted," the judgment states.
However, the fact that the appellant became aware of his wife's love affair with the victim five days before, and the victim's verbal conversation with the appellant, in which the victim replied that he loved his wife and wished to marry her, was rightly held by the Assize Court to be circumstances which did not constitute provocation on the part of the victim.
It is also noted that the Assize Court rightly pointed out that the use of the knife, as a result of which the death of the victim with 17 stab wounds occurred, gave particularly seriousness to the offence committed by the appellant, to impute to him premeditation and transfer of the knife by himself.
Therefore, we do not detect any error of principle, nor has it been demonstrated that the present sentence is manifestly excessive, given the seriousness of the charge, but also the facts surrounding it, the Supreme Court said, noting that the appeal is dismissed and the sentence imposed is upheld.
