Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
No. 1) v. The Police (1969) JSC 253 Generato dall'IA

Bail pending appeal refused due to lack of reasonable probability of success and affidavit by advocate.

Numero d'incarto No. 1) v. The Police (1969) JSC 253
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Cipro (CY)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Supreme Court refused bail pending an appeal against a three-week prison sentence. The applicant's advocate submitted an affidavit, which the court deemed undesirable as it turns the lawyer into a witness. The court declined to grant bail because there was no material evidence showing a reasonable probability the appeal would succeed.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

s. 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code; Bail pending appeal may be granted only if reasonable probability of success is shown; Affidavit by advocate is generally undesirable as it renders the advocate a witness.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
bail pending appeal reasonable probability advocate affidavit short imprisonment criminal procedure capacità di subire la carcerazione permesso di promuovere un procedimento penale minaccia nel diritto penale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Petri v. The Police (1968) 2 J.S.C., p. 83
In such circumstances, if it can be shown that there is a reasonable probability that the appeal against conviction will succeed, the case to which learned counsel for the applicant has refered us - Petri v. The Police (1968) 2 J.S.C., p. 83 - would be an authority in support of the application.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
Petri v. The Police (1968) 2 J.S.C., p. 83
In such circumstances, if it can be shown that there is a reasonable probability that the appeal against conviction will succeed, the case to which learned counsel for the applicant has refered us - Petri v. The Police (1968) 2 J.S.C., p. 83 - would be an authority in support of the application.
Generato dall'IA
No. 2) v. The Police (1969) JSC 315
Frivolous appeal withdrawn at hearing; court dismisses appeal and orders sentence to run from conviction date.
CY-AAD-meros_2-1991-rep-1991_2_0057
Cypriot Supreme Court allows extension of appeal time for foreign defendant against sentence due to reasonable cause.
CY-AAD-meros_2-1969-rep-1969_2_0053
Supreme Court refuses bail pending appeal due to lack of reasonable probability of success.
Αρ. 206/2007
Appeal dismissed; defendant's refusal to accept counsel led to self-representation and conviction upheld.
CY-AAD-meros_1-1984-rep-1984_1_0189
Court granted application to reopen hearing due to respondent's counsel failure to receive notice despite service.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

[*253] 1969 February 7

(VASSILIADES, P., STAVRINIDES, LOIZOU, JJ.)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Minas Lazarou (No. 1)

Applicant,

v.

The Police,

Respondents.

(Criminal Application No.1/69).

Criminal Procedure - Bail - Application for bail pending hearing of appeal against conviction - Short period of imprisonment - No material that there exists a reasonable probability that appeal will succeed - Application refused.

Practice - Advocates - Affidavit sworn by parties’ advocate - Advocate should not become a witness in the case by swearing affidavit.

E. Vrahimi (Mrs.), for the Applicant.

S. Georghiades, Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: -

VASSILIADES, P.: This is an application for bail pending the hearing of an appeal against conviction, upon which the applicant was sentenced to three weeks’ imprisonment. The Application is supported by an affidavit drawn up and sworn by applicant’s advocate.

Before we go further with the matter, we would like to repeat what has already been said on more than one occasion, that it is undesirable that the facts upon which any proceedings [*254] are based, should be put before the Court through an affidavit sworn by the parties’ advocate who, thus, becomes also a witness in the matter. It is obvious why such a position is undesirable.

Be that as it may, however, in the present case, the application rests mainly on the contention that in view of the short period of the sentence of imprisonment, if the appeal against conviction is successful, the appellant will have served his sentence by the time the appeal is heard. In such circumstances, if it can be shown that there is a reasonable probability that the appeal against conviction will succeed, the case to which learned counsel for the applicant has refered us - Petri v. The Police (1968) 2 J.S.C., p. 83 - would be an authority in support of the application. It is for the applicant to show that this reasonable probability exists in the appeal in question.

On the material before us, we cannot say whether such a probability does exist in the present case. We do not even have a copy of the Judgment of the trial Court, which, we understand from counsel, was a considered Judgment, read in Court by the trial Judge. Surely we could have a copy on the record of the application. As matters stand, on the material before us, and on what has been said in the Petris case (supra), we must refuse the application.

Application for bail refused.

Application refused.