Wireless telegraphy conviction quashed due to lack of evidence supporting the accused's guilt.
Zypern (CY)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the appellant's conviction for maintaining wireless telegraphy apparatus without a license. The trial judge found the accused guilty based on prosecution evidence, but the appellate court determined no evidence on record supported this finding. Consequently, the conviction was quashed, the sentence set aside, and the appellant was ordered to refund the fine and arrears.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiertWireless Telegraphy Law, Cap. 307, sections 3(1) and 11(a)(ii): A conviction for maintaining wireless telegraphy apparatus without a license is quashed where the record contains no evidence to support the finding of guilt.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertVolltext
[*1209] 1966 December 15
(JOSEPHIDES, STAVRINIDES, JJ., HJIANASTASSIOU, AG. J.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Ioannis Rossides,
Appellant,
V.
The Police,
Respondents.
(Criminal Appeal No.2828).
Wireless Telegraphy – Conviction - Appeal against conviction for maintaining an apparatus for wireless telegraphy without a licence, contrary to sections 3(0 and 1l(a)(ii) of the Wireless Telegraphy Law, Cap.307 - No evidence on record to support conviction
- Quashed - No costs to appellant.
Criminal Law - See under "Wireless Telegraphy" above.
E. Emilianides, for the Appellant.
A. Frangos, Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:-
JOSEPHIDES, J,: In this case appellant was charged with maintaining an apparatus for wireless telegraphy without a licence, contrary to sections 3(1) and 11(a)(ii) of the Wireless Telegraphy Law, ,ap. 307. The particulars of the offence stated that as from the 30th June, 1954, the accused (appellant) did maintain a four-valve apparatus without a licence from the Council of Ministers. The trial Judge after hearing evidence gave his Judgment which reads as follows: [*1210]
"I accept the evidence for the prosecution and find the accused guilty as charged".
We have gone through the record of the evidence in this case and we are satisfied that there was no evidence to support the conviction, and Mr. Frangos, Counsel for the Respondent, very properly gave notice that he would not support it. In the circumstances the appeal is allowed, the sentence is set aside, and it is ordered that the sum of £1.500 mils fine and. £10.500 mils "arrears" he refunded to the appellant.
On the question of costs claimed by the appellant, his counsel did not cite any authority in support of his submission but, assuming that we did have power to grant costs, we do not think that in the circumstances of this case we would be justified in exercising our discretion in favour of the appellant. It should be stated that on the first day of the hearing this Court pointed out to appellant's counsel that it may well be that there was no evidence to support the conviction, a point which was not originally included in the grounds of appeal filed by counsel.
Appeal allowed as above. No order as to costs.
Order accordingly.