Supreme Court allows appeal against conviction for lack of reasoned judgment and failure to record prior convictions.

[*1025] 1968 September 27

(VASSILIADES, P., JOSEPHILES, HADJIANASTASSIOU, JJ.)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Anastassis Panayi,

Appellant,

v.

The Police,

Respondents,

Criminal Appeal No. 3014).

Criminal Procedure ~ Conviction - Proper record in a judicial proceeding

- Giving reasons for judgment - The Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 135, section 113(1) " Failure to give reasons constitutes an irregularity which vitiates the trial - A conviction based on a non-reasoned judgment should not he sustained.

Criminal Procedure -- Sentence - Previous convictions – If previous convictions are to be placed before the Court for the purposes of sentence, a list of the convictions so presented must he made part of the record.

Human Rights - Constitutional rights - In Cyprus, it is every person’s Constitutional right under Article 30, para. 2, of the Constitution, that any judgment affecting his rights shall he reasoned.

Appellant in person.

M. Kyprianou, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: -

VASSILIADES, P.: This is an appeal against convict ion, taken upon a notice on the form usually supplied to prisoners on admission to the Central Prison after their conviction. The notice was apparently prepared without legal assistance it is signed by the appellant with his finger mark [*1026] which indicates that he cannot even write his name; and gives as grounds of appeal the assertion that the appellant is innocent.

The appellant, aged 34, was charged under section 262 of the Criminal Code (Cap.154) with larceny; he pleaded not guilty to the charge and was tried in the District Court of Nicosia early in August last.

The learned trial Judge heard three witnesses called for the prosecution; and the appellant who elected to give evidence on oath. He then proceeded to give his Judgment which, according to the record, consists of one single short sentence: “find the accused guilty as charged. The Judge then proceeded to deal with the previous convictions of the appellant; and the notes in this connection read:

’’Accused has 81 previous convictions (read out in Court).”

The sentence imposed after this is equally laconically:

”18 months imprisonment, 10/- costs to he paid by “the Republic."

Brevity and precision are valuable qualities in judicial notes. We also appreciate the need of saving time in the trial courts. On the other hand, these matters cannot be carried to excess at the expense of a proper record in a judicial proceeding.

This matter arises every now and again at the hearing of appeals. And this Court has had occasion to state its views thereon. One case to which we may refer by way of [*1027] illustration is Mikis Frixou alias Paraschos v. The Police (1963) C.L.P. Part I, p. 83.

That was an appeal against sentence only. The case before us is an appeal against conviction, where the verdict of the Court results from the assessment of the evidence. It is, we think, a glaring example of a Judgment which does not g state the reasons for the Court’s decision, as required by section 113(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law (Cap.155); and constitutes an irregularity which vitiates the trial. We find it unnecessary to say anything more about it. We are unanimously of opinion that a conviction based on a non-reasoned Judgment should not be sustained.

The right of every person to be informed of the reasons for which he is deprived of his liberty is one of his internationally proclaimed fundamental human rights. Moreover, in Cyprus it is the appellant’s Constitutional right under Article 30, para.2 of the Constitution, that any Judgment affecting his rights "shall be reasoned."

We cannot give substance to the legal provisions governing the matter before us, by merely stating our views thereon. We must give effect to such provisions. We feel constrained to set aside the conviction based on the Judgment before us; and in the interests of justice order a new trial.

The appellant in this case is an individual who is stated to have no less than 81 previous convictions. In this connection, we wish to repeat what has already been stated time and again that if the previous convictions are to be placed before the Court for the purposes of sentence, a list [*1028] of the convictions so presented must be made part of the record, so as to become available for; subsequent proceedings in the case. Obviously the Court of Appeal cannot assess the effect of the previous convictions on the Judge’s mind when he was measuring his sentence, unless this Court knows the nature, time and other necessary details of such convictions.

In the result this appeal is allowed, the conviction is set aside and a new trial is ordered before another Judge.

Appeal allowed.

Conviction set aside.

New trial to take

place before another

Judge.