Section 54: Order of increase and reduction

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 3704/2567 (2024)

   Under Section 54 the court must first fix the punishment to be imposed and only then apply the increase; increasing before fixing the base term is incorrect and may be revised.

   The Supreme Court corrected the sentencing method, holding that under Section 54 the trial court had to fix the punishment first and then increase it by one-half, and revised the judgment to follow that order.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 802/2567 (2024)

   Under Section 54, in calculating a reduction the court first fixes the punishment, then calculates the portion to be reduced and deducts it from the fixed term.

   The Supreme Court en banc explained that under Section 54 the punishment is fixed first, then the reduction portion is calculated and deducted, so a one-third reduction of a four-year term is one year four months, leaving two years eight months.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 5873/2567 (2024)

   Section 54 requires the court first to fix the punishment, then to increase it, then to reduce from the increased figure. Where a one-third increase is followed by a one-third reduction, the two amounts are not equal, so the court may not treat them as equal and decline to make either adjustment.

   The Court of Appeal Region 2 fixed ten years' imprisonment, then treated the one-third increase for recidivism as equal to the one-third mitigation reduction and made neither, leaving ten years. The Supreme Court held that contrary to Section 54: increasing ten years by one third and then reducing the result by one third gives eight years, ten months and twenty days, so the two were not equal and both adjustments had to be made.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.