clr/1970/1970_2_117.pdf

(2)of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (Law of the Republic No. 14 of 1960)—// is not, therefore, subject to appeal—See also section 131

(1)of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155—Cf sections 39 and 131 to 153 inclusive of the said Law, Cap. 155. Statutes—Construction—" Decision" in section 25

(2)of the Courts of Justice. Law, 1960 (supra). Appeal—No appeal lies against a ruling of a District Judge over­ ruling an objection taken before the commencement of prelimi­ nary inquiry to the joinder of A with Β in one charge—See supra. Words and Phrases—" Decision " in section 25

(2)of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (Law of the Republic No. 14 of 1960). The facts sufficiently appear in the judgment of the Court, dismissing the ruling of the Judge whereby he overruled the appellant's objection that, as he was charged with an offence triable summarily, he could not properly be joined in the same charge with the other co-accused, charged with a felony i.e. an offence triable on information. Appeal against ruling. Appeal by Evangelos Christofi against a ruling of the District Court of Limassol (Boyiadjis, D J . ) given on the 11th August, 1970, in Criminal Case N o . 8628/70, whereby it was ruled that a preliminary inquiry be held in the case of the appellant and another person who were charged together 117 1970 Aug. 25 EVANGELOS CHRISTOFI v. T«ff POLICE in acharge sheet charging appellant ofbeing amember ofan unlawful association, contrary to section 56

(1)of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154,andtheother person of holding an office in an unlawful association contrary to section 56

(2)of the Criminal Code. A. Myrianthis, forthe appellant. A. Frangos, Senior Counsel of the Republic, forthe respondents. The judgment ofthe Court wasdelivered by :— VASSIUADES, P.: The appellant before us is a police sergeant, 38 years of age, whowascharged together with another person inthe District Court ofLimassol onacharge containing twocounts. The first count concerns the other person (the first accused in the proceedings) charginghim with theoffence of holding anoffice inanunlawful association contrary to section 56

(2)of the Criminal Code,Cap. 154 ; the second count concerns the appellant, charging him with theoffence ofbeingamember ofthesame unlawful association contrary to section 56

(1)of the Code. The-offence ofholding an office inanunlawful association (provided in sub-section 2) is a felony punishable with imprisonment for 7years. Theoffence ofbeingamember of an unlawful association (provided in sub-section 1) ispunishable with imprisonment for three years. On the 11thAugust, 1970, thecase came before a District Judge, whowasto hold the preliminary inquiry. Atthe opening of the case, counsel for the appellant submitted Chat as his client wascharged with an offence punishable with imprisonment notexceeding three years, hewas triable summarily ;and, therefore, nopreliminary inquiry couldbe held in his case. The prosecuting officer submitted that the twoaccused were rightly charged together as theyhad committed practically the same offence, the one being an officer andtheother being a member ofthesame unlawful association. He added that evidence would be adduced that both accused were meeting and discussing the problems of the unlawful association. Therefore—the prosecution submitted—the two accused were rightly joined inthesame charge under section 39 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155,anda preliminary inquiry should be held in the case ofboth accused. The Judge, accepting the submission, overruled the objection and proceeded with the taking of evidence in the preliminary inquiry. Against that ruling the appellant before ustook thepresent appeal. 118 The first question which arises is whether such an appeal lies. Counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appeal lies under section 25

(2)of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (No. 14 of 1960) which reads :— " 25

(2). Subject to the provisions of the Criminal ProcedureLaw,but save as otherwise in this sub-section provided, every decision of a Court exercising criminal jurisdiction shall besubject toappeal totheHigh Court. Any such appeal may be made as of right against conviction or sentence on any ground." The submission on behalf of the appellant is that the decision to hold a preliminary inquiry is a " decision " of a Court exercising criminal jurisdiction and, therefore, it is subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court. We find ourselves unable to accept this submission. The section provides that an appeal lies under sub-section

(2)" subject to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law ", save as " otherwise provided " in the sub-section. The provisions in the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155,governing appeals in criminal cases, are contained in Part V of the statute, section 131 to 153 inclusive. The opening section 131

(1)reads :— " 131

(1). Subject to the provisions of any other enactment in force for the time being, no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Court exercising criminal jurisdiction except as provided for by this Law." It isclear, we think, that when sub-section

(2)of section 25 of the Courts of Justice Law, refers to " every decision ", this must be read " subject to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law "; and, therefore, it can only refer to " decisions " which are subject to an appeal under the Criminal Procedure Law. The ruling against which the present appeal is taken, is not, as far as we can see on the basis of the argument that we have heard, such a decision. Therefore, we hold that this appeal does not lie. What other legal remedies may be available to the appellant, is a matter which is not for us to decide ; it is a matter for his legal adviser to consider. Appeal dismissed. 119 1970 Aug. 25 EVANGELOS CHHISTOFI v. THE POLICE