MENU
In its recent judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 123/2026, dated 30 September 2026, the Court of Appeal upheld the Appellant’s first ground of appeal, resulting in the reduction of his sentence from ten to six months’ imprisonment. The successful ground raised an important issue concerning a custodial sentence, the execution of which had been conditionally suspended by virtue of a Presidential Pardon, and its relevance to the subsequent sentencing exercise.
The Appellant had been convicted, following a guilty plea, of an offence of theft, while another case of a similar nature was also taken into consideration for sentencing purposes. In determining the appropriate sentence, the trial Court also took into account the Appellant’s previous criminal record and imposed an immediate custodial sentence. It had not, however, been informed that a previous sentence of 107 days’ imprisonment had been conditionally suspended by virtue of a Presidential Pardon and that, as a result of the new conviction, there was a possibility that the suspended sentence would be activated.
This omission formed the subject matter of the first ground of appeal. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the potential activation of a previous suspended sentence constitutes an objective factor which must be placed before the Court, as it may have a bearing on the Court’s determination of the length of the new sentence. Significantly, the Court clarified that it is immaterial whether the suspension derives from a judicial decision or, as in the present case, from a Presidential Pardon.
In this context, the Court of Appeal agreed with the Appellant’s position and reiterated the fundamental principle of totality in sentencing, according to which the punishment imposed should not be disproportionate to the offender’s overall criminal responsibility. The possibility of activation of the suspended sentence must, therefore, be brought to the Court’s attention, so that it may take into account the overall effect of the sentences to be served when determining the appropriate sentence.
The Court of Appeal also made particular reference to the omission on the part of the Prosecution, reaffirming that it is the Prosecution’s paramount duty to place properly before the Court the accused’s record and all relevant information pertaining thereto, including the existence of a previous suspended sentence.
The judgment is of particular interest given the unusual circumstances of a sentence suspended by virtue of a Presidential Pardon. It confirms, on the one hand, that the source of the suspension does not alter its significance in the determination of a subsequent sentence and, on the other, the duty of the Prosecution to ensure that the relevant information is duly placed before the Court.
The appeal was successfully argued by Irene Christoforidou, Associate at Phoebus, Christos Clerides & Associates LLC, on behalf of the appellants.
