Supreme Court dismisses appeal where trial court's credibility findings on conflicting witness versions were thoroughly reasoned.

[*912] 1971 December 20

(TRIANTAFYLLIDES , P., HADJIANASTASSIOU, MAIACHTOS, JJ.)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Cornock Colin Alan Guy,

Appellant,

v.

The Police,

Respondents.

(Criminal Appeal No. 3303).

Road Traffic - Careless driving - Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law, Cap. 332 - Collision at road junction - Credibility of witnesses - Two conflicting versions before trial Court - Both thoroughly examined and reasons given for trial Court’s decision on issue of credibility are reasons warranting such decision.

A. Myrianthis, for the Appellant.

M. Kyprianou, Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the Court was delivered by:-

TRIANTAFYLLIDES. P.: The appellant has appealed [*913] against his conviction, by the District Court of Limassol, in respect of a count charging him with driving a motor-car without due care and attention, contrary to section 6 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law, Cap. 332.

The salient facts of the case are as follows:

On the 17th April, 1971, the appellant was driving his motor-car (with hiswife sitting next to him) along Vassileos Constantinou street, in Limassol, and as he was about to enter a side-street to his right he collided with a motoy-cycle driven by Aristarchos Andreou, of Limassol, who was his co-accused before the trial court and who was acquitted.

The main eye witnesses were the appellant, his wife, the co-accused, a pillion passenger of the co-accused, who was closely related to him, and a gentleman from Holland who was not traced by the police; his presence at the place of the collision had been mentioned to the police by the appellant and when the appellant discovered later that the police had not been able to trace this independent eye-witness he tried to do so himself but he was not successful as the person in question had apparently left Cyprus in the meantime.

We do not think that, in the circumstances, the absence from the trial of the said eye-witness can affect the outcome of this appeal: If the appellant had acted with the reasonably necessary diligence he could have found out [*914] from the police much sooner than When he did so that this eye-witness had not been traced by the police and the appellant could then have tried much earlier to find him.

The eye-witnesses who, eventually, gave evidence before the trial judge were the appellant, his wife and the pillion passenger.

The trial court disbelieved the evidence of the appellant, which was supported by that of his wife, and believed the evidence of the pillion passenger; as a result it found the appellant guilty of driving without due care and attention.

It has been contended by counsel for the appellant that the trial judge’s decision on the issue of credibility was wrong; having considered all that counsel submitted in this respect we are of the view that we cannot agree with him:

It is clearly obvious from the judgment of the court below that the conflicting versions before it were examined thoroughly ; and the reasons which were given for its decision on the issue of credibility are reasons warranting such decision; among such reasons was the fact that the appellant originally indicated to the police a spot in Vassileos Constantinou street, as being the point of impact, which was other than that which was pointed to the police by the pillion passenger, but, later, during the course of the trial, the appellant agreed that the point of impact

was the spot indicated by the pillion passenger; [*915] the spot which was originally indicated by the appellant is some

distance away from the junction where the collision took place and it was, therefore, a point of impact very much compatible with the contention of the appellant that he was not to blame at all for the collision; on the other hand, the actual place of the collision-which has been accepted, eventually, as the correct point of impact by the appellant - is in the middle of the junction and is, thus, consistent with the version of the pillion passenger, namely that the appellant turned right suddenly.

In the light of the foregoing this appeal fails and it is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.