Supreme Court dismisses bail appeals where District Judge correctly applied discretion regarding charge seriousness.
Cyprus (CY)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court dismissed the appeals by three appellants seeking release on bail pending trial before the Limassol Assizes. The appellants argued their personal circumstances were prejudicially affected by continued custody, while the District Judge had exercised discretion based on the seriousness of the charges. The court held that the Judge applied correct legal principles and properly weighed relevant factors, making it improper to interfere with the decision.
Legislator headnote
AI generateds. 24 of the Bail Act 1978; The District Judge's discretion in refusing bail must be exercised by considering all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the charge, and the Supreme Court will not interfere unless the decision was arbitrary or based on wrong principles.
Keywords
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedFull text
[*1] 1978 March 29
JUDGEMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CYPRUS ON APEAL AND IN ITS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
(not included in the Cyprus Law Reports)
AND
JUDGEMENTS OF THE DISTRICT COURTS IN WHICH THERE WAS NO APPEAL
(TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., A. LOIZOU, MALACHTOS, JJ.) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Michalakis Demetriou Vikis and Others,
Appellants,
v.
The Police,
Respondents,
(Criminal Appeals Nos. 3860-3864).
Bail - Committal for trial by Assize Court - Refusal of committing Judge to release on bail - Discretion of Judge - Correct principles of law applied in the light of all relevant factors, one of them being the seriousness of the charge - Not proper to interfere with
decision appealed from.
Appellants 3, 4 and 5 appear in person.
M. Kyprianou with M. Florentzos, for the Respondents,
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Court was delivered by:-
TRIANTAFYLLIDES. P.: The three appellants who have not withdrawn their appeals, appellants 3, 4 and 5, have placed before us the reasons for which they
claim to be released on[*2] bail till their trial which is fixed before the Limassol Assizes commencing on May 15, 1978.
The said reasons relate mainly to their personal circumstances, which, as they allege, are prejudicially affected by their being kept in custody pending their trial.
The question of releasing them on bail was decided in the exercise of the judicial discretion of the District Judge who committed them for trial by the Assizes; and as it appears from his
decision he applied the correct principles of law in the light of all relevant factors, one of them being the seriousness of the charges faced by the appellants.
In view of the above we do not consider it proper to interfere with his appealed from decision.
Appeals dismissed.