clr/1977/1977_2_309.pdf

(3)of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (Law 14 of 1960)—Evidence sought to be introduced intended to substitute, in theplace of the relevantpowers of thetrial Courtandof Courtof Appeal,regarding evaluation of evidence, the opinion of a witness at a trial—Such evidence entirely outside ambit of said section 25

(3). This was an application, under section 25

(3)of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (Law 14 of 1960) for leave to recall a prosecution witness, at the trial of the appellant, to give further • evidence before the Court of Appeal for the purposes of the appeal. The further evidence was to the effect that what the appellant told this witness about placing at the house of the complainant the grenades in respect of which he was convicted, was in the opinion of the witness, a lie, because on many past occasions ihe appellant had bragged about doing things which he allegedly had done, but which in fact he did not do. Held, dismissing the application, that this Court is asked to recall a prosecution witness in order to hear from him his own appreciation of the credibility of the appellant regarding matters which, as he has testified at the trial, were said to him by the appellant; that evidence of the nature sought to be introduced by means of the present application, and which is intended, in essence, to substitute in the place of the relevant powers of the trial Court and of this Court, regarding evaluation of evidence, the opinion of a witness at the trial,is entirely outside the ambit of section 25

(3)of Law 14/60; and'that accordingly, the application will be dismissed. Application dismissed. 309 1977 May 24 PANAYIOTIS MOUZOURJS (No. 1) V. THE REPUBLIC Application. Application for an order, under section 25

(3)of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (Law 14/60) that one of the prosecution witnessesat thetrial ofthe appellant, shouldberecalled togive further evidence before the Supreme Court. A. Pandelideswith A.Ladasand St.Kittisfor the appellant. St. Tamassios, for the respondent. 5 The decision of the Court was delivered by:TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.: At the commencement of the hearing of this appeal counsel for the appellant has invited us to deal 10 with an application of his seeking an order, under section 25

(3)of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960(Law 14/60),that one of the prosecution witnesses at the trial of theappellant, namely Takis Constantinou (P.W.6), should be recalled to give further evidence before us for the purposes of this appeal. 15 The application is supported by an affidavit to which there is annexed a signed declaration by the said witness, made on January 23, 1977;theapplication wasfiledonJanuary 29,1977, and theaffidavit wasswornonthesamedate. Inhisdeclaration the witness concerned states, in effect, that what the appellant 20 told him about placing at the house of the complainant the grenades in respect of which he was convicted, was, in the opinion of the witness, a lie, because on many past occasions the appellant had bragged about doingthingswhichheallegedly had done, but which infact he did not do. 25 Thus we are asked torecall a prosecution witnessinorder to hear from him his own appreciation of the credibility of the appellant regarding matters which, as he has testified at the trial, were said to him by the appellant; and, it is not, indeed, alleged, in the said signed declaration of this witness, that the 30 appellant did not, in fact, say to him what such witness told the trial Court that the appellant had said to him about placing the grenades in question. In our opinion evidence of this nature, such as that which is sought tobeintroduced by meansoftheapplication nowbefore 35 us, and which is intended, in essence, to substitute in the place of the relevant powers of the trial Court and of this Court, regarding evaluation of evidence, the opinion of a witness at the trial, is entirely outside the ambit of section 25

(3)of Law 14/60. 310 40 Itistobenoted,inanycase,thatwhenthesaidwitnessrelated atthetrial what theappellant had told him about havingplaced thegrenades, hedid add, too, that hedid not take the appellant seriously,becausetheappellant wasinthehabit oftalkingabout thingswhichhehad not, actually, done;inother words,whatis containedinthenowbefore ussigneddeclaration ofsuchwitness has been, already, stated on oath before the trial Court, which had, thus, the opportunity to weigh it together with the rest of the relevant evidence. Application dismissed. 10 311 1977 May 24 PANAYIOTIS MOUZOURIS (No. 1) V. THB REPUBLIC