clr/1965/1965_2_69.pdf

(2)The contradictory statements of the appellant, as well as his conduct in approaching a witness for the prosecution and trying to induce him to give false evidence, led the trial Court to the conclusion that the explanation offered by the appellant as to the absence of guilty knowledge was untrue, and the trial Court was justified, therefore, in convicting the appellant of receiving the said stolen property.

(3)We agree, however, with learned counsel for the appellant that adequate reasons should be given by trial Judges in 69 1965 •J 11110 ANTON-IS , v THE their judgments when they record their findings in respect of the ingredients of offences for which an accused person is found 8ϋίΐ1*·

(4)The appeal should be dismissed and the sentence should run from the date of conviction. POLICE Appeal dismissed. Sentence to runfrom date of conviction. Appeal against conviction. Appeal against conviction by the appellant who was convicted on the 13.5.65, by the District Court of Nicosia, (Criminal Case No. 1750/65) of the offence of receiving, contrary to section 306 (a) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154, and was sentenced by Georghiou, D.J. to two years' imprison­ ment. L. N. Clerides, for the appellant. A. Frangos, counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. T h e j u d g m e n t of t h e Court was delivered by : ZEKIA, P . : I n this case the appellant was convicted of receiving between the 1st and 3rd August, 1964, a camera, valued £ 2 0 , the property of one Christodoulos Papachristoforou of Nicosia, knowing the same to have been stolen. T h e main ground of appeal argued before us was that there was no evidence of guilty knowledge on the part of the prisoner, which knowledge is an ingredient in the offence of receiving. It was established before the Court that the camera involved in the charge was stolen from the bedroom of the complainant between the 1st and 3rd August, 1964, and that some time in August 1964 the same camera was pledged by the prisoner with a coffee-shop keeper called T h o m a s . So, the prisoner was in recent possession of a stolen article and it was open to him to rebut the inference of guilty knowledge by an explanation which, even if it was not believed, might reasonably be true. T h e appellant made a statement to the police on the 11th November, 1964. In that statement he admitted having pledged the camera in question with the said Thomas but he alleged that he had bought it from a certain Israeli for £ 1 4 . Later before the Court, when he gave evidence, 70 he stated that he pledged the camera on behalf of another Israeli. On the day of his trial, he approached one of the prosecution witnesses, namely, a certain David Pickard, and requested him to make a false statement before the Court to the effect that this witness had purchased the stolen camera from a third person and after that he sold it to the prisoner and that if he gave such evidence it would help his case. The contradictory statements of the appellant, as well as his conduct in approaching a witness for the prosecution and trying to induce him to give false evidence, led the trial Court to the conclusion that the explanation offered by the appellant as to the absence of guilty knowledge was untrue, and the trial Court was justified, therefore, in convicting the appellant of receiving the said stolen property. We agree, however, with learned counsel for the appellant that adequate reasons should be given by trial Judges in their judgments when they record their findings in respect of the ingredients of offences for which an accused person is found guilty. In the circumstances, we think that the appeal should be dismissed and the sentence should run from the date of conviction. Appeal dismissed. Sentence to run from date of conviction. 71 1965 June 17 ANTONIS IOANNOL* CHHISTOFIDIS V. T H E POLICE