Court refused witness recall application due to lack of proper timing and sufficient support under section 25(3).
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe court refused the appellant's application to recall prosecution witness P.W.3, ruling that such requests must be properly made in due time and sufficiently supported. Counsel argued the case was serious and required more time, but the court declined to reserve judgment sine die. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the criminal appeal was adjourned for a final decision on November 18, 1965.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiertSection 25(3) of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960; An application to recall a prosecution witness must be properly made in due time and sufficiently supported to be entertained.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertZitierte Rechtsprechung
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertVolltext
[*1075] 1965 October 15
(VASSILIADES, TRIANTAFYLLIDES, MUNIR, JJ.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Costas Hji Costas,
Appellant,
v.
The Republic,
Respondent.
(Criminal Appeal No.2780).
Criminal Procedure - Application to recall witness under section 25(3) of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (Law 14 of 1960), must be properly made, in due time, and be sufficiently supported.
G. Tornaritis, for the Appellant.
S. Georghiades, Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent.
In the course of the hearing of the above criminal appeal, Appellant’s
Counsel made an application to recall a witness of the Prosecution (P.W.3), under the provisions of section 25(3) of
the Courts of Justice Law, 1960.
The decision of the Court on the said application was delivered by:-
VASSILIADES. J.: Dealing first with Mr. Tornaritis application to have witness 3 recalled for further examination, under the provisions of section 25(3) of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960, we have to repeat what has already been pointed out more than once before: that such an application will only be entertained if properly made, in due course, and if sufficiently supported, as directed in Kousoulides v. The Republic (Criminal Appeal 2444, decided on 16.4.62)*; in Pitsillos v. The Police (Criminal Appeal 2457, unreported); Pericles Ioannou [*1076] Kolias v. The Police (Criminal Appeal 2637, decided on 4.6.63);* and in several other cases decided thereafter, to which we need not now refer. The application to recall witness Ritsa Georghiou (P.W,3) is, therefore, refused.
As regards the merits of the appeal, we are inclined to agree with counsel for the appellant that this is a most serious case for his client, and we would like to have more time to consider our judgment. We wish to avoid reserving judgment sine die in a criminal appeal; unfortunately, we have no day available before the 1 8th November. The case will be adjourned to the 18th November, for judgment. The appellant is under his sentence-warrant.
Application to recall
witness under section 25(3)
of the Courts of Justice
Law, 1960, refused.
Case adjourned to the
18th November, 1965, for
judgment.
* Not yet reported.
* Not yet reported.