. [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., STAVRINIDES, MALACHTOS, JJ.] GEORGHIOS P. MAVROS AND OTHERS, Appellants, v: 1977 June 27 GEORGHIOS P. MAVROS AND OTHERS v. THE POLICE THE POLICE, Respondents. (Criminal Appeals Nos. 3809-3811). 5 10 15 20 Bail—Committalfor trialby Assizesfor unlawfulpossessionof firearms and ammunition—Refusal of bail—Appeal—Principles on which Court of Appeal interferes with Judge's discretion—Seriousness °f offence—Severity of punishment and nature of evidence— Appellants not hampered in the preparation of their defence— Charges against appellant 3, though serious, lessgrave than those against appellants 1and 2—Judge dealt ina general andsweeping manner with all appellants without distinguishing sufficiently the case of appellant 3—Appeal of appellant 3 allowed subject to conditions—Other appeals dismissed. The appellants were committed to be tried by an Assize Court in Limassol, as co-accused in one and the same case. The committal took place on May 30, 1977, and the Assize Court sitting was due to commence on October 17, 1977. Appellants 1 and 2were charged jointly with unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition; and appellant 3 was charged with unlawful carrying and possession of a firearm and with unlawful possession of ammunition. Upon appeal against the refusal of the committing Judge to release them on bail, pending their trial, counsel for the appellant mainly contended: (a) That a somewhat longer than usual interval of time will elapse between their committal for trial and the next sitting of an Assize Court in Limassol; 25 (b) that the appellants will suffer financial hardship if they are kept in custody pending their trial; and (c)' that the preparation of their defence will be hampered. Held,
(1)that the appellants are not hampered in the prepara349 June 27 GEORGHIOS P. MAVROS AND OTHERS V. THE POLICE tion of their defence as their counsel are being afforded all the required facilities for visiting them while they are in custody; that sitting asan AppealCourt toreview,ifnecessary, adecision reached by a Judge in the exercise of hisjudicial discretion, and having in mind the principles which should guide this Court in 5 a case of thisnature (see,inter alia, Rodosthenous andAnother v. The Police, 1961 C.L.R.. 50 at p. 52), this Court has not been satisfied that it should interfere withtheexerciseof thediscretion of the Judge which resulted in the refusal of bail to appellants1 and 2; and that, accordingly, their appeals will be dismissed. 10
(2)That asthechargeswhichappellant 3faces, though serious innature,are lessgravethan thosewithwhich appellants 1 and2 are faced; that' as the alleged commission of the offences concerned by appellant 3 is not inextricably connected with the commission of the other offences with which appellants 1 and 2 15 arecharged;that astheJudgehasdealt inageneraland sweeping manner with all three appellants, without distinguishing sufficiently the case of appellant 3 and without, apparently, addressing his mind specifically to all pertinent considerations in relation to him this is a proper case in which to intervene in 20 his favour by allowing his appeal; and that, accordingly, it is directed that heshould bereleased on bail pending histrial. Appeals of appellants 1 and 2 dismissed. Appeal of appellant 3 allowed. 25 Cases referred to: Rodosthenous andAnotherv. The Police, 1961C.L.R. 50at p.52; Attorney-General of the Republic v. Mehmet
(1966)2 C.L.R. 12 at pp. 14 and
- Appeal against refusal to grant bail. 30 Appeal by Georghios P. Mavros and others against the refusal of the District Court of Limassol (Anastassiou, D.J.) dated the 30th May, 1977 to release the appellants on bail after they had been committed for trial before the Assize Court of Limassol for offences of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition 35 in Criminal Case No. 10749/
- S. Stavrinides, for appellant
- M. Vassiliou with S. Stavrinides, for appellant
- E. Efstathiou with D. Koutras, for appellant
- A.M. Angelides, Counsel of the Republic, for the 40 respondents. 350 . The judgment'of the.Court was delivered by: TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.: The appellants complain against the refusal of bail by a District Judge in Limassol after he had committed all three of them to be tried by an Assize Court in "5 Limassol as co-accused persons in one and the same case. The committal took place on May 30, 1977, and the next Assize Court sitting, at which they will be tried, isdue to commence on October 17,
- Appellants 1and 2 (who are accused 1 and 2 in the case in 10 question) are charged jointly, by means of counts 1, 2 and 3 in the information, with unlawful possession in May, 1977, of firearms and ammunition. We need not set out in detail what is alleged to have been found in their possession. We may describe it as a veritable arsenal. 15 Appellant 3(who isaccused 3in thecase)ischarged, by means of counts 4, 5 and 6, with having unlawfully carried, and been in possession of, a firearm in June, 1976,and, also, with having, at the same time, possessed unlawfully ammunition. TheJudge hastaken into account, in refusing bail, the serious20 ness of the charges which the appellants are facing, the severity of the punishment which conviction on such charges may entail for them, as well as the nature of the evidence which was placed before him for the purposes of the committal for trial. We have considered carefully all that has been put forward by 25 counsel for appellants 1and 2 and, especially, that a somewhat longer than usual interval of time will elapse between their committal for trial and the next sitting of an Assize Court in Limassol, that the appellants will suffer financial hardship if they arekept incustody pending their trial, and that the prepara30 tion of their defence will be hampered. We regard this last contention as particularly unfounded in the light of the circumstances of the present case; it is amply clear that counsel for the appellants arebeingafforded all therequired facilities for visiting their clients, while they are in custody, in order to receive all 35 necessary instructions for the preparation of their defence; and, , actually, counsel for the appellants have very fairly stated that they have not yet met with any difficulty in this connection. Sitting as an Appeal Court to review, if necessary, a decision reached by a Judge in the exercise of hisjudicial discretion, and 40 having in mind the principles which should guide us in a case of 351 1977 June 27 GEORGHIOS P. MAVROS AND OTHERS V. THE POLICE" 1977 June27 GEORGHIOS P. MAVROS AND OTHERS v. T>IEPOLICE this nature, as they were expounded, for example, in Rodosthenous and another v. The Police, 1961 C.L.R. 50, and TheAttorney-General of theRepublicv. Mehmet,
(1966)2 C.L.R. 12,14,15, we feel that we have not been satisfied that we should interfere with the exercise of the discretion of the Judge which resulted inthe refusal ofbail to appellants I and 2; consequently, we dismiss their appeals. The case of appellant 3,as very rightly pointed out by counsel for the respondents is clearly distinguishable: The charges which he faces are also serious in nature, but, in view of the particulars which are stated in the relevant counts, they are, actually, less grave than those with which appellants 1 and 2 and faced. 10 Moreover, it appears—in so far as we can Judge from the record .before us—that the alleged commission of the offences concerned by appellant 3 is not inextricably connected with the commission of the other offences with which appellants 1and 2 are charged. The Judge has, however, dealt in a general and sweeping manner with all threeappellants,without distinguishing sufficiently the case of appellant 3 and without, apparently, addressing his mind specifically to all pertinent considerations in relation to him. 15 20 We have, therefore, decided that it isa proper casein which to intervene in his favour by allowing his appeal; we, therefore, direct that he should be released on bail, pending his trial, on 25 the following conditions:
- that he will enter into a recognizance to appear at his trial in the sum of C£1,000, with a surety or sureties to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the District Court of Limassol, or with a bank guarantee;
- that he will surrender his passport, if any, to the police and that he will abstain from taking any steps to get any other papers enabling him to travel abroad until the conclusion of his trial;
- that he will reside in Limassol, at his present address (Evrota street No. 3), and that he will not leave the municipal limits of Limassol without a permit in writing from the Limassol police,except inorder to go,in relation to his work, to the village area of Trachoni,' from where 352 30 35 he will not leave to go anywhere else except back to Limassol orasauthorizedby apermit inwritingfrom the Limassol police; 5
- thathewillremainwithinthemunicipallimitsofLimassol between sunset and sunrise;
- that hewillalwaysleaveathisaboveaddress in Limassol sufficient information so that the police may trace him whenever they may require to do so; and 10
- that he will report once a day to a police station in Limassol whichwill be indicated tohim by the Limassol police. In the result, these appeals are determined as stated hereinabove. Appealsof appellants1 and 2 15 dismissed; appeal of appellant 3 allowed, 353 1977 June 27 GEORGHIOS P. MAVROS AND OTHERS v. THE POLICE