Supreme Court quashes conviction for carrying a knife where accused was tried in absence despite likely imprisonment sentence.
Cipro (CY)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe Supreme Court quashed the appellant's conviction and ordered a new trial because the accused was tried in his absence. Although the appellant voluntarily failed to appear, the court held that for charges carrying potential imprisonment, a warrant of arrest should have been issued to ensure his presence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside to protect the accused's right to be heard.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IACriminal Code Cap. 154, s. 82(2), 84(b), 85; Criminal Procedure Law Cap. 155, s. 87: Where a charge carries a likely sentence of imprisonment, the accused must be brought before the court under a warrant of arrest for trial and sentencing, even if they voluntarily fail to appear.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IAGiurisprudenza citata
Generato dall'IADecisioni correlate
Generato dall'IATesto completo
[*193] 1967 February 17
(VASSILIADES, P., TRIANTAFYLLIDES, JOSEPHIDES, JJ.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Ioannis Socratis alias "Kokkalos",
Appellant,
v.
The Police,
Respondents.
(Criminal Appeal No.2880).
Criminal Law - Conviction and sentence - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Offence of carrying a knife, contrary to sections 82(2), 84(b) and
85 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154 - Accused convicted and sentenced in his absence - Nature and gravity of offence - Proper course warrant of arrest to issue.
Criminal Procedure - Criminal Procedure Law Cap. 1.55, section 87 - Trial of accused in his absence - when presence of accused necessary - Nature and gravity of offence - A case where a warrant of arrest ought to have been issued.
E. Odysseos, for the Appellant.
S. Georghiades, Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondents.
COURT (To counsel for the Police): Are you supporting this conviction Mr. Georghiades?
Mr. Georghiades; In view of the Judgments of the Supreme Court in the Niazj case reported in vol.19 p. 127 and Kapodistrias ease reported in vol.22 p.181 of the Cyprus Law Reports I shall not support the conviction.
COURT: Do you wish to say anything Mr. Odysseos?
Mr. Odysseos: I would like to draw attention
to the fact that the Appellant has already served part of his [*194] sentence. He was arrested the following day after the conviction and
has been in prison ever since, i.e. for a period of 22 days.
COURT: You will no doubt raise this matter before the appropriate court in case of conviction, Mr. Odysseos.
JUDGMENT
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by: -
VASSILIADES, P.: Quite rightly, in our opinion, learned counsel for the Respondent stated, in answer to the Court that he would not support the conviction in the light of the cases to which he has referred. There is ample precedent resting on the principle that the accused in a criminal case is entitled to be heard. And although in the present case, the accused had the opportunity of being heard, and it was all through his own fault that he was not before the Court at the hearing of the case, we are clearly of the opinion that in view of the nature of the charge, this being a case where a sentence of imprisonment was likely to be imposed, the proper course was to have the accused brought before the Court under a, warrant Of arrest, for the purposes of trial; and, in case of conviction for the purposes of sentence. His conviction will, therefore, be quashed; and an order for a new trial before another Judge, be made.
Appeal allowed conviction quashed; order for new trial made accordingly.
Order in terms.