clr/1967/1967_2_26.pdf

(2), 84(b) andS5 ofthe Criminal Code, Cap. 154—Conviction andsentence of imprisonment—Accused convicted and sentenced inhis absence—In view of thegravity of the offence hispresence at the trial ought to have been secured—Proper course was to issue warrant of arrest—See, also, below. Criminal Procedure—Trial in criminal cases—Trial oft accused in his absence—The Criminal Procedure Law, Cap.. 155, section %1—When presence of accused necessary—Nature and gravity of the offence—A case where a warrant of arrest ought to have been issued—See, also, under CriminalLaw, above. Trial in Criminal Cases—Presenceofthe accused at the trial—When necessary—See above. The facts sufficiently appear in the judgment ofthe Court. Cases referred to: • Niaii Ahmpd v. The Police, 19C.L.R 127; Kapodistna» v. Petrides. 22 C.L.R. 181. Appeal against conviction and sentence. Appeal against conviction a n dsentence by appellant who was convicted on the 24th January, 1967, at t h e District Court of Nicosia, sitting at Morphou (Criminal CaseN o . 3039/67) on one count of t h e offence of carrying knife, contrary to sections 82

(2), 84 (b) and 85 ofthe Criminal Code, "Cap. 154 a n d was sentenced by Pitsillides, D.J., tosix months' imprisonment. E. Odysseos^ fort h e appellant. S. Georghiades, Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. 26 COURT (TO counsel for the Police) : Are you supporting this conviction Mr. Georghiades? Mr. Georghiades: In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the Niazi case reported in vol. 19 p. 127 and Kapodistrias case reported in vol. 22, p. 181 of~ the Cyprus Law Reports I shall not support the conviction. COURT : Do you wish to say anything Mr. Odysseos? Mr. Odysseos: I would like to draw attention to the fact that the appellant has already served part of his sentence. He was arrested the following day after the conviction and has been in prison ever since, i.e. for a period of 22 days. COURT : You will no doubt raise this matter before the appropriate Court in case of conviction, Mr. Odysseos. The following judgment was delivered by : VASSILIADES, P.: Quite rightly, in our opinion, learned counsel for the respondents stated, in answer to the Court that he would not support the conviction in the light of the cases to which he has referred. There is ample precedent resting on the principle that the accused in a criminal case is entitled to be heard. And although in the present case, the accused had the opportunity of being heard, and it was all through his own fault that he was not before the Court at the hearing of the case, we are clearly of the opinion that in view of the nature of the charge, this being a case where a sentence of imprisonment was likely to be imposed, the proper course was to have the accused brought before the Court under a warrant of arrest, for the purposes of trial ; and, in case of conviction for the purposes of sentence. His conviction will, therefore, be quashed ; and an order for a new trial before another Judge, be made. Appeal allowed ; conviction quashed ; order for new trial made accordingly. Order in terms. 27 1967 Feb. 17 SOCRATIS alias " KOKKALOS* V. T H E POLICE