1969 Sept. 25 [VASSILIADES, P., TRIANTAFYLLIDES, LOIZOU, JJ.j ANTIGONI LAZAROU ANTIGONI LAZAROU, Appellant, v. V. THE POLICE THE POLICE, Respondents. (Criminal Appeal 3112). Trial in criminal cases—Separate trialsfor separate charges related to eachother inpoint of time andsequence of eventsandin connection with samecomplainant—Notanirregularityjustifying the setting aside of the conviction—Nor has there beenany miscarriage ofjustice. Criminal Procedure—Separate trials—Seesupra. Cases referred to : R. v. Olivo[1942] 2All E.R. 494 (distinguished) ; R. v. Wilde24 Cr. App. R. 98 (distinguished). The facts sufficiently appear in the judgment of the Court dismissing this appeal against conviction. Appeal against conviction. Appeal against conviction by Antigoni Lazarou who was convicted on the 27th June 1969, at the District Court of Limassol (Criminal Case No. 5907/69) on one count of the offence of reckless and negligent act contrary to section 236(
- a)of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154 and was sentenced by Boyadjis, D.J. to three months' imprisonment. L. N. Clerides, for the appellant. S. Nicolaides, Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. VASSILIADES, P. : The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Mr. Justice Triantafyllides. TRIANTAFYLLIDES, J. : In this case the appellant appeals against her conviction by the District Court of Limassol, on the 27th June, 1969, on a charge based on section 236(
- a)of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154. 150 According to the particulars of the charge, on the 26th January, 1969, she drove motor-car AZ984, on a road, in Limassol, in such a manner as would be likely to cause harm to one Georghios Leandrou of Limassol. 1969 Sept. 25'' ANTIGONI LAZAROU v. She pleaded " not guilty " to such charge and the trial Court, after hearing the evidence of the complainant and finding him to be a reliable witness and being, also, convinced by the line of the defence that, in effect, the material facts of the case were not really disputed, had no difficulty in finding the appellant guilty as charged. The main argument advanced before us by counsel for the appellant has been that as the charge in question was related, in point of time and from the point of view of sequence of events, to other—even though different— charges against the same appellant, in connection with the same complainant, which were pending, in another case, before the trial Court at the time, either all the charges, including the one under section 236(a), ought to have been included in one and the same charge-sheet and been tried together, or the trial Court ought not to have proceeded to try and decide both cases, one after the other, as in fact it has done. In this respect we have been referred by counsel to two English cases, R. v. Olivo [1942] 2 All E.R. 494, and R. v. Wilde, 24 Cr. App. R. 98. Both these cases relate to occasions on which separate indictments were tried simultaneously, at one and the same trial. But this is not, at all, the position in the case now before us. Here there have, on the contrary, taken place separate trials for separate charges. In the light of all relevant circumstances we have not been satisfied that there has been any irregularity which would justify us in setting aside the conviction of the appellant ;it isquite clear, especially in view of the aforementioned line of the defence of the appellant, that she has suffered no prejudice nor has there taken place any miscarriage of justice at all. In the result this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. 151 THE POLICE'