1962 Oct. 30 [WIISON, P., ZEKIA, VASSILIADES and JOSEPHIDES, JJ.] MICHAEL APOSTOLOU TSOUKA, MlCHAbl Appellant, . v. THE V. T H E POLK ι POLICE, Respondents. (Criminal Appeal No. 2564.) Bali—Matters to be considered in determining should be granted—Evidence—Appeal whether or not bail against the refusal of the committing Judge to grant bail. This was an appeal f r o m the refusal of the c o m m i t t i n g Judge t o allow bail. The High C o u r t applying the well k n o w n p r i n ciples laid d o w n in its latest decision Rodosthenous and another v. The Police 1961 C.LR.50, dismissed the appeal. The rele vant part of Rodosthenous case (supra) reads as f o l l o w s : — " N o w , t h e r e is no difference between t h e parties as t o t h e matters t h a t are t o be considered by a C o u r t o r by a Judge in determining w h e t h e r o r not bail should be granted. The primary ground is w h e t h e r o r not the accused is likely t o attend and stand t r i a l , but that is not t h e only m a t t e r that has t o be considered and, amongst others, are t h e seriousness o f the offence, t h e likelihood o f another offence being c o m m i t t e d , o r the same offence being repeated while on bail, and the possi bility o f witnesses being tampered w i t h . A l l these are matters t h a t may be taken i n t o consideration, and, in some of t h e decided cases, one o r more of these matters have been t h e governing factors in deciding t o refuse b a i l " . Held :
(1)It is q u i t e clear f r o m t h e judgment under review t h a t t h e C o u r t has taken i n t o account t h e seriousness of the offence, t h e penalty which conviction entails and t h e evidence given during the application for bail and at the preliminary mquity The trial Judge t o o k also i n t o account the evidence of the Superintendent of Police and arrived at the conclusion that it appeared t o him the accused may c o m m i t the same o r another offence if let at large and f u i t h e r it appears that the lives of the accused are in danger.
(2)APOSTOLOI 1 TSOUKA 7 nerefore, the appeal must be dismissed. Appeal dismissed. 261 1962 Oct. 30 MicHAtL APOSTOLOU TSOUKA ,, Cases referred to : Rodosthenous andanother v. The Police 1961 C.L.R. 50. Appeal against the refusal of the lower court to grant bail. THE I*OI ICE The appellant was on the 13.10.62, refused bail at the District Court of Famagusta (Kourris, D.J.) on completion of his preliminary inquiry into charges of possessing firearms (Cr. Case No. 5032/62) whereby he was committed for trial by the Assizes. K. Saveriades for the appellant. S. Georghiades for the respondents. Thejudgment of the Court was delivered by :— WILSON, P. : We think it is unnecessary to call on Counsel for the Republic in this case. There wasevidencebefore theJudgewhoheard the application for bail from which one could reasonably arrive at the conclusion to refuse it and·we are called upon to review the discretion exercised by the trial judge. We must follow the principles which have already been laid down and to which counsel for the appellant has in part referred. The principles are so well known and I need do no more than quote from Rodosthenous &another v. ThePolice (Criminal Appeals Nos. 2339 and 2340), the latest decision of this Court, now reported in 1961 C.L.R. 50, pp. 51-52 : "Now, there is no difference between the parties as to the mailers that are to be considered by a Court or by a Judge indetermining whether or not bail should be granted. The primary ground is whether or not the accused is fikcly to attend and stand trial, but that is not the only matter- that has to be considered and, amongst others. are the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of another offence being committed, or the same offence being repeated while on bail, and the possibility of witnesses being tampered with. All these are matters that may be taken into consideration, and, in some of the decided cases, one or more of these matters have been the governing factors in deciding to refuse bail". 262 It isquite clear from thejudgment under review·thattfie' Court hastaken into account theseriousness of the offence, the penalty which conviction entails and the evidence giveh during theapplication for bail andatthepreliminary inquiry. The trial Judge took also into account the evidence ofthe Superintendent of Police and arrived at theconclusion that it appeared to him the accused may commit the same or another ofTence ifletat large andfurther it appears that the lives of the accused arein danger. Theappeal must, therefore, be dismissed. Appealdismissed. i <-. 2 6 3 IMS Oct. JO MlCHAFL APOSTOLOL' TSOUKA V. THE PoLicr Wilson, P.