clr/1977/1977_2_289.pdf

(1)of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155. These appeals were directed against the refusal of the Commit·· ting Judge to release the appellants on bail upon their committal for trial by the Assize Court. Counsel for the respondents took objection to the effect that the Supreme Court did not possess jurisdiction to deal with these appeals under section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155; and he submitted in this respect, by citing, inter alia, Xenophontos v. Charalambous, 1961 C.L.R. 122, that the right of appeal provided for under section 25

(2)of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (Law 14/60), can be exercised in criminal matters on the basis only of the relevant provisions of Cap. 155. He further argued that in dealing with these appeals the Supreme -j Court would not be a "Court exercising criminal jurisdiction", in the sense of section 157

(1)* of Cap. 155, and consequently it was not vested with jurisdiction to entertain them. - Held, that since any'Court, when dealing at any stage with an _ application for bail, is exercising for this purpose criminal juris. diction, this Court, too, when sitting on appeal from a decision concerning bail, is exercising, to the required limited extent, „ criminal jurisdiction in the.sense of section 157

(1)of Cap. 155; that this view is the one which is the most consonant with the Section*157

(1)provides as follows:.' . . . . ' . . ' ' . "Subject to the provisions of subsection

(2)of this section, any Court exercising criminal jurisdiction may, if it thinks proper, at any stage of the proceedings, release on bail any person charged or convicted of any offence, upon theexecution bysuch person ofa bail bond asin this Law provided". 289 1977 April 15 1977 April15 LoizosSAVVA AND ANOTHER (No. 1) v. THE POLICE protection of the interests ofjustice in general and of the liberty of the subject in particular and it coincides,too, with the proper construction of section 157

(1);and that, accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to proceed to deal with these appeals on their merits. 5 Order accordingly. Cases referred to: Xenophontos v. Charalambous, 1961 C.L.R. 122; Christofiv. The Police

(1970)2 C.L.R. 117; Georghadji andAnother v. TheRepublic

(1971)2 C.L.R. 229; Lazarouand Others v. ThePolice

(1973)2 C.L.R. 81; Leftis v. The Police

(1973)2 C.L.R. 87; Varellas and Othersv. The Police,19 C.L.R.

1. 10 Decision. Decision on an objection of Counsel for the respondents to 15 the effect that the Supreme Court does not possess jurisdiction to deal with appeals from a .decision concerning bail, under section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap.
2. L.N. Clerides with A. Papacharalambous, for appellant
3. C. Indianos, for appellant
4. 20 A. Evangelouwith A.M. Angelides, Counsel of the Republic, for respondents, The decision of the Court was delivered by: TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.: At thisstageof thepresent proceedings before us we have to consider an objection of counsel for the 25 respondents to the effect that we do not possess jurisdiction to deal with these appeals under section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap.
5. He has submitted, in this respect, that, as has been decided in cases such as Xenophontos v. Charalambous, 1961 C.L.R. 30 122, Christofi v. The Police,

(1970)2 C.L.R. 117, Georghadji and another v. The Republic,

(1971)2 C.L.R. 229 and Lazarou and others v. The Police,

(1973)2 C.L.R. 81,the right of appeal, provided for under section 25

(2)of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (Law 14/60), can be exercised in criminal matters on the 35 basis only of the relevant provisions of Cap. 155. We see no reason to disagree with him on this point. He, however, went on to argue further that in dealing with 290 the present appealswewould not be a "Court exercising criminal jurisdiction", in the sense of section 157

(1)of Cap. 155, and, consequently, we are not vested with-jurisdiction to entertain them. It seems that counsel for the respondents thought fit to 5 raise this objection regarding ourjurisdiction in view of the fact that in Leftis v. The Police,

(1973)2 C.L.R. 87,wechose not to pronounce finally in this connection. 10 15 20 25 The previous occasion when such an objection was raised appears to have been in Varellas and others v. The Police, 19 C.L.R. 46; the relevant statutory provision, which was in force at the time, was section 154

(1)of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 14 (in the 1949 Revised Edition of the Statute Laws of Cyprus) and it is the same as the at Jpresent in force section 157

(1)of Cap. 155. In the Varellas case the Supreme Court did not sustain the objection and proceeded to deal with an appeal concerning bail. Since the Varellascase appeals of this kind were made both by persons in custody, to whom bail had been refused, as well as by the police, in cases in which bail had been granted, and in all those cases, to which we need not refer specifically, the appeals were entertained and decided, without any objection as to jurisdiction having been raised. Thus, a practicewasestablished on the basis ofwhat was decided in the Varellas case; but, of course, such practice cannot, in our view,be treated as being of so conclusive a nature as to preclude counsel for the respondents from reverting to the subject of the correct construction of section 157

(1)of Cap. 155. What wehavebeen called upon to decide iswhether in dealing with the present appeals we are a "Court exercising criminal jurisdiction" in the sense of that section; though admittedly 30 this is an issue which did present some difficulty, we have, in the end, reached the conclusion that, since any Court, when dealing at any stage with an application for bail, is exercising for this purpose criminal jurisdiction, we, too, when sitting on appeal from a decision concerning bail, are exercising, to the 35 required limited extent, criminal jurisdiction in the sense of section 157

(1)of Cap. 155; in our opinion this view is the one which is the most consonant with the protection of the interests ofjustice in generaland of theliberty of the subject in particular; and it coincides, too, with the proper construction of section 40 157

(1), above. We hold, therefore, that we have jurisdiction to proceed to deal with these appeals on their merits. Order accordingly. 291 1977 April 15 Loizos SAWA AND ANOTHER (No. 1) v. THE POLICE