1967 April 14 [ V A S S I U A D F S , P.. JOSRPHIDFS A N D HAGOP H A G O P M I C H A E L DJERIr-DJIAN A N ! ) MICHAEL HADJIANASTASSIOU. J.J.1 ANOTHER. Appellants, DjEREDJIA.V AND ANOTHER v. THE T H E REPUBLIC REPUBLIC, Respondent. Criminal (Criminal Application Procedure—Appeal—Time— Extension Nos. 1/67- 2/67). of time to JiIt- appeal—Section 134 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Cap. 155— Discretion the Court--'/est applicable- -•" Good of must be shown—Section applications "good cause " 134—The grounds on which the present to this Court are hosed, do not amount to such 134 of Cap. 155, supra—Bearing in mind that the procedure laid down for cause" as required under section the lodging of an appeal in criminal cases is different from that laid -Criminal Rules. down in civil proceedings Procedure rule 24—Civil Procedure Rules. Order 35. rule 4 for of time to file appeal against conviction extension section 134 of Cap. 155, refused by the Supreme Appeal—Criminal appeal- Time—Application Application under Court. for extension of time to file appeal —See above. Time- -Extension of time to file appeal in a criminal case for such extension—Refused -Application See above. These arc two applications whereby ιhe Court is prayed t o extend the time f o r lodging an appeal against conviction by the Assize Court o f Kamagusta on the l l t h M a r c h , l % 7 . T h e applications were filed o n the 28lh M a r c h , ! % 7 , that is to say seven days after lh_- expiry o f the time limit laid d o w n f o r the lodging o f the appeals. The C o u r t in dismissing both applications • Held, ( I ) the applications are based m i section 134 o f the C r i m i n a l Procedure Law, Cap. 155, and the lest which will have to be applied is that " good cause " must be shown by the applicants lo the satisfaction o f the C o u r t .
(2)- - ( « ) T h e grounds on which the present applications arc based are two : ((/) That the notes o( the proceedings were not ready to enable counsel to draft the grounds o f Πή appeal..and (
- h)that there were irregularities at the trial. Wr. that the prosecution gave very short notice for the calling of witnesses -who-had not~ been. called at the preliminary inquiry. (
- b)In considering this matter this Court has to bear, in mind that, whereas in civil proceedings the grounds of appeal have to be stated in' the notice of appeal and no new ground may be filed nor the original grounds amended without prior leave of the Court (see Civil Procedure Rules, Order-35. rule 4), in criminal proceedings, however, there is express provision in rule 24 of the Criminal Procedure -Rules, which enables an appellant to file amended grounds of appeal after the filing of his original notice of appeal without leave of the Court. (
- c)We are οΐ the opinion that in the present cases there was nothing to prevent learned counsel for the applicants from filing in time their appeals with one or two main grounds, with the additional ground of the alleged irregularities referred to above. If, after obtaining a copy of the notes of the proceedings, he came to the conclusion that additional grounds should be added, then under rule 24 (supra) he could have amended his grounds before the date of the hearing of the appeal, without leave of the Court.
(3)In these circumstances we are of the view that no " good cause " has been shown for extending the time within which to file an appeal, and both applications should be refused. Applications dismissed. Applications for extension of time. Applications for an order extending the time within which the.applicants may give notice of appeal against their con viction by the Assize Court of Famagusta, dated the 11th March, 1967, in Criminal Case N o . 8271/66 of offences under sections 122, 116 (
- p)and (
- s)of the Bankruptcy Law, Cap. 5. Chr. Mitsides, for t h e applicants. A. Frangos, Counsel of the Republic, for the respon dent. VASSILIADES, P.: T h e judgment of the Court will be delivered £>y m y brother Josephides, J . 137 W67 April 14 HAOOP MICHAEL . DjEBEDJIAN AND-ANOTBBB tJ. THE- REPUBLIC 1967 April 14 HAGOP MICHAEL DJEHEDJIAN AND ANOTHER v. THE REPUBLIC JOSEPHIDES, J.: In these two applications the Court is prayed to extend the time for lodging an appeal against conviction by the Assize Court of Famagusta pronounced on the 11th March, 1967. The application is based on section 134 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155, and the test which has to be applied is that " good cause " must be shown by the applicant to the satisfaction of this Court. As already stated, the judgment of the Assize Court, after a long trial, was delivered on the 11th March, 1967, and the charges involved in this case were charges under the Bankruptcy Law, Cap. 5, sections 122, 116(
- p)and (s). The two accused were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment, ranging from 3 to 18 months, but all terms are to run concurrently. The present applications for extension of time to lodge an appeal were filed on the 28th March, 1967, that is to say, 17 days after the delivery of the judgment and seven days after the expiry of the time limit laid down for the lodging of the appeal. In the meantime, and five days prior to the lodging of the present application, that is, on the 23rd March, 1967, the Attorney-General of the Republic lodged an appeal on the ground of the insufficiency of the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment. The grounds on which the present applications are based are two : (
- a)that the notes of the proceedings were not ready to enable counsel to draft the grounds of appeal, and (
- b)that there were irregularities at the trial, that is to say, that the prosecution gave very short notice for the calling of witnesses who had not been called at the preliminary inquiry. In considering this matter the Court has to bear in mind that the procedure laid down for the lodging of an appeal in criminal cases is different from that laid down in civil proceedings. In the case of civil proceedings, when an, appeal is lodged the grounds of appeal have to be stated in the notice of appeal and no new ground may be filed nor the original grounds amended without prior leave of the Court (Civil Procedure Rules, Order 35, rule 4). In the case of criminal proceedings, however, there is express provision in rule 24 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, which enables an appellant to file amended grounds of appeal after the filing of his original notice of appeal without any leave of the Court. 138 We are of the view that in the present case there was nothing to prevent learned counsel for the applicants from filing an appeal with one or two main grounds, with the addi tional ground of the alleged irregularities at the trial, re ferred to above. The fact that counsel did not have a copy of the notes of the proceedings would not prevent him from drafting these grounds of appeal, considering that he was defending counsel at the trial. If, after obtaining a copy of the notes of the proceedings, he came to the conclusion that additional grounds should be added, then under the provisions of rule 24 he could have amended his grounds before the date of hearing of the appeal, without leave of the Court. In these circumstances we are of the view that no good cause has been shown for extending the time within which to file an appeal, and both applications should be refused. Applications dismissed. Orders accordingly. 139 1967 April 14 HAGOP MICHAEL DJEREDJΙAN AND ANOTHER v. T H E REPUBLIC