clr/1967/1967_2_167.pdf

(4)and 1 5

(2), and the Motor Transport Regulations, 1964 Road Traffic—The Regulations Motor Transport 13(

1. h)and 25—Approved stopping to stop taxi at the approved stopping place—Failing place contrar\ to Regulations 13(
2. h)and 25 (supra)—No substance in submission that said Regulation 13(
3. h)is ultra virev the provisions oj sections 9

(4)and 15

(2)oj (he aforesaid Law— Or iepu%nant to Articles 13, 15, 25 and 28 of the Constitution Criminal Pioceduie —Trial in criminal cases—Witness tailed h\ the defence but not asked bv them to gne evidence— Called bv the Court after the close oj the defence—E\en if this course was not allowed, the Court, still, would not interfere with the conviction appealed against—And would e\ercise the poweis \ested in it by the proviso to section 145

(1)(b) of the Criminal 155—As theie has been no substantial Procedure Law, Cap miscarriage of justice. Μ isc arriage of fustic e—No mist arria^e of fustice—Sec lion 145

(1)(b). proMSO, of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap \SS—See abo\e Evidence in Cr-mmal Cases—The best cadence 'life In prosecutions like the present one the taxi licence of the accused must be produced b\ the prosetution as part of Us case—It is not suffitient for a police constable to gne evidence and say that according to the licence in the accused's possession the latter is entitlted to park in a specified street Witness—Witness called bv the Court after the close of the case for the clefem e—See abo\e under Criminal Pioc edure Trial in Criminal Cases—See above undei Criminal Constitutional 13, 15, 25 and 28—Regulation 13(h) Law—Articles of the Motor Transport Regulations, Procedure 1964, is not repugnant to any oj those Articles of the Constitution /-, . ϊ 167 1967 M a y 26 CHARALAMBOS KOUKOUNIDES v. T H E POLICE The appellant, a taxi-driver was convicted of the offence of failing to stop his taxi at the approved stopping place, contrary to Regulations 13 (Λ) and 25 of the Motor Transport Regulations, 1964, made under the provisions of section 15 of the Motor Transport Law, 1964. The main grounds of appeal are three : (I) that Regulation 13(A) is ultra vires the provisions of section 9

(4)of the aforesaid Law and the provisions of section 15

(1)and

(2)of the same Law;

(2)that the aforesaid Regulation is repugnant to the provisions of Articles 13, 15, 25 and 28 of the Constitution ; and

(3)that the trial Judge called a witness after the c'ose of the defence, who had been called by the defence, after an adjournment granted at their request, but eventually not asked to give evidence. In dismissing the aprcal the Court : Held,

(1)we do not think that there is any substance either in the first or recond grounds of appeal (supra).

(2)As regards the third ground (supra), even if there was any substance in the submission (supra) this would be a case in which the Court would exercise the powers vested in it under the proviso to section 145 (I) (

1. b)of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155, that there has been no substantial miscarriage of justice. Appeal dismissed. Per curiam : We consider that it is necessary that in prosecutions like the present one the taxi licence should be produced to the Court by the prosecution as part of their case. It is not sufficient for a police constable Ιοgive evidence and say that according to the licence in the accused's possession he is entitled to park in a specified street. This is contrary to the best evidence rule. In fact the licence was eventually produced in this case by the accused himself and was before the Court. 4ppeal against conviction. Appeal against conviction by appellant who was convicted on the 15th April, 1967, at the District Court of Nicosia (Criminal Case N o . 1196/67) on one count of the offence of failing to vstop his taxi at the approved stopping place, 168 contrary to Regulations 13(
2. h)and 25 of the Motor Transport Regulations, 1964, and section 15 of the Motor Transport Law, 1964, and was sentenced by Papa Ioannou, Ag. D,-J..to pay a fine of £4. ,967 a _^_2 CHARALAMBOS KOIIKOL-NIDES V. E. Emilianides, for the appellant. ' *' A. Frangos, Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents, . T h e judgment of the Court was delivered by : JOSEPHIDES : We shall not call upon you Mr. Frangos and we do not propose giving a long judgment. T h e appellant was convicted of the offence of failing to stop his taxi at the approved stopping place, contrary to Regulations 13 (A) and 25 of the Motor Transport Regulations, 1964, made under the provisions of section 15 of the Motor Transport Law, 1964. T h e facts, which are not really in dispute, were that the daxi-driver was licensed under a permit issued under the provisions of the''aforesaid law and regulations, and one of the conditions of the permit was that he should park his taxi in Gregoriou Afxentiou Street. This was in accordance twith regulation 13 (
3. h)of the Motor Transport Regulations; On the day in question, at about 8 p.m. a policeman, who gave evidence in the case, found the taxi of the accused parked in King Paul Street which is not far away from Gregoriou Afxentiou Street. T h e accused in evidence admitted that he had his taxi parked there for about half-an-hour as he was having a cup of coffee. T h e trial Judge, after hearing the explanation given by the accused, found him guilty and we are of the view that there was ample evidence to find the accused guilty of the charge. Three main grounds were argued before us today on his behalf. T h e first ground was that Regulation 13(A) is ultra vires the provisions of section 9

(4)of the Motor Transport Law, 1964 and the provisions of section 15

(1)and

(2)of the same Law. T h e second ground was that the aforesaid Regulation is repugnant to the provisions of Articles 13, 15, 25, and 28 of the Constitution ; and the third ground was that the Judge called a witness after the close of the defence, who had been called bv the defence, after an adjournment granted at their request, but eventually not asked to give evidence. 169 THE POLICE 1967 ay CHARALAMBOS KOOKOUNIDES v. THE POLICE As regards all grounds, no authority has been cited in support of the submissions made to the Court and we are sorry to say that we are not prepared to look into submissions which are not supported by authorities. In any event, we do not think that there is substance either in the first o r second ground of appeal. As regards the third ground, even if there was any substance in the submission this would be a case in which the Court would exercise the powers vested in it under the proviso to section 145

(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155, that there has been no substantial miscarriage of justice. T h e r e is one observation we would like to make arising out of the conduct of the case for the prosecution in this case, and that is that we consider that it is necessary that in such prosecutions the taxi licence should be produced to the Court by the prosecution as part of their case. It is not sufficient for a police constable to give evidence and say that according to the licence in the accused's possession he is entitled to park in a specified street. T h i s is contrary to the best evidence rule. In fact the licence was eventually produced in this case by the accused and was before the Court. In the result the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. 170