Criminal appeal allowed; inquiry into mental state invalid due to non-compliance with summary trial procedure rules.
Cipro (CY)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe Supreme Court allowed the appeal against an order adjudicating the appellant a mental patient. The District Court held the inquiry invalid because it failed to follow the procedure required by Rule 7(1) of the Mental Patients Rules, which mandates adherence to summary criminal trial procedures. The court emphasized that liberty and health matters require strict compliance with statutory rules, setting aside the original order and allowing fresh proceedings.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IASections 3 and 6(1) of the Mental Patients Law, Cap. 252; Rule 7(1) of the Mental Patients Rules: An inquiry into a person's mental state for confinement must follow summary criminal trial procedures; failure to do so renders the order invalid.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IAGiurisprudenza citata
Generato dall'IADecisioni correlate
Generato dall'IATesto completo
[*215] 1972 March 30
(TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., STAVRINIDES, A. LOIZOU, JJ.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
In re Panayiotis Pepes,
(Criminal Appeal No. 3335).
Mental Patients - Inquiry as to the mental state of a person - Sections 3 and 6(1) of the Mental Patients law, Cap. 252 - Procedure to be followed - The one followed in Criminal proceedings upon summary trial - Rule 7(1) of the Mental Patients Rules.
L. Georghiadou, (Mrs.) with E. Lemonaris, for the Appellant.
Cl. Antoniades, Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Court was delivered by: -
TRIANTAFYLLIDES. P.: The appellant challenges the validity of an order, made by the District Court of Nicosia, whereby he was adjudged to be a mental patient and a proper subject of confinement, under the provisions of section 6(1) of the Mental Patients Law, Cap. 252.
The order was made on the 18th March, 1972 in the absence of the appellant, though, as appears from the evidence given by Dr. G. Malekides, who is the Medical Officer in charge of the Male Section of the Mental Hospital, where the appellant was under observation, the appellant was fit to be present in Court. [*216]
The appellant was represented before the Court below by one of the two counsel who appear before us today; counsel’s appearance is not shown in the Court record for the 18th March, 1972, but counsel concerned has made a statement today that on the date in question he sought to question Dr. Malekides, who testified as a witness, and, also, to call evidence, but the Court below disallowed both such courses.
Counsel for the Respondent has confirmed what counsel for the appellant has stated, as above, adding, very rightly, that he does not support the order appealed from.
Under rule 7(1) of the Mental Patients Rules the procedure to be followed at an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether a person is to be adjudged to be a mental patient and a proper subject of confinement, shall be as nearly as possible, the same as the procedure followed in criminal proceedings upon summary trial.
It is obvious from the foregoing that not only was the procedure followed on the 18th March, 1972, not at all as nearly as possible that followed in a summary criminal trial, but that there was no proper inquiry at all; and this being a matter concerning the liberty and health of a citizen, the importance of compliance with the relevant Law and Rules was stressed in Re Kepsis, 24 C.L.R. 244.
The order appealed from is set aside, if the authorities have reason to believe that the appellant is a mental patient and a proper subject of confinement, they are at liberty to take proceedings afresh, and we trust that care will be taken that such proceedings will comply in every respect with the relevant legislation.
Appeal allowed.