(1982)1982 October 30 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.] INTHEMATTEROFMANFREDMUTKE, AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY HIM FOR AN ORDER OF HABEAS CORPUS. (Application No. 13/82). Fugitive offenders—Extradition—Committal tocustory awaiting extradition—Noevidencebefore CommittingJudge in the senseof section9
(5)and 13 of the FugitiveOffenders Law, 1970 (Law 91j70)—Andnofindingby the Judgethatthere wasplacedbefore himsuchevidence—Suchfindingan essentialpart of thedecision 5 —Order ofcommittalnotmade with duecompliance withprovision of said section 9
(5)—Order for habeas corpus made—Section 10of theabove Law andArticle 155.4 of the Constitution. This was an application for an order of habeas corpus after a Judge of the District Court of Limassol committed applicant 10 to custody awaiting his extradition to the Federal Republic of Germany. The Committal was bzsed on section 9 of the Extradition of Fugitive Offenders Law, 1970 (Law 97/70) and the application for an order of habeas corpus was made under section 10* of the same Law. 15 Regarding theevidencetobeheard bytheCourtof Committal under section 9
(5)**of the Law the provisions of section 13*** of the Law show that such evidence need not be always oral and on oath. Counsel for the applicant contended that the Court of Com- 20 mittal had no evidence before it on the basis of which there could have been madethe committal order challenged by means of an application for an order of habeas corpus. Counsel for the respondent referred the Court to documents forwarded * Section 10 is quoted at pp. 924-926 post. ·* Section 9
(5)is quoted at pp. 926-928 post. *** Section 13 is quoted at pp. 928-930 post. 922 1 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 In re Manfred Mutke to the Government of Cyprus when the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany requested the extradition of the applicant, namely an "International warrant for arrest" issued by the Local Court at Osterode am Harz on 19th July 1982 and setting out, in detail, the offences in respect of which the extradition of the applicant is being requested, and, also, a certificate issued by the aforesaid Local Court on 19th July 1982 regarding the relevant provisions of the Geiman Criminal Code. Held,that ^ere isnothinginthedocumentswhichwereplaced before the Court of committal and before this Court which could be regarded as "evidence", in the sense of sections 9
(5)and 13 ofLaw97/70,whichwasadducedinsupport oftherequest for the extradition of the applicant and which could be treated as evidence "sufficient to warrant" the applicant's "trial" for the offences concerned 'if they "had been committed within the jurisdiction" of the Court of committal; that, further, the Court ofcommittal itself,inits relevant ruling,does not appear to have made afindingthat there was placed before it evidence of the aforementioned nature and no such finding has been pointed to this Court in the said ruling by counsel for the respondent; that thatfindingwasanessentialpart ofthedecision to commit the applicant to custody to await hisextradition and it should have been made clearly and expressly, because this isa matter affecting the liberty of a person; and that, therefore, the oidei made, as aforesaid, by the District Court of Limassol, was not made with due compliance with the provisions of subsection
(5)of section 9 of Law 97/70 and, consequently, an order for habeas corpus, in the exercise of the powers of the Court under section 10 of Law 97/70, as well as under Article 155.4 of the Constitution, has to be made, with the result that the applicant should be discharged from custody. Applicationgranted. Application. Application for an order of habeas corpus by Manfred Mutke following his committal to custody awaiting extradition, by a Judge of the District Court of Limassol. S. Patsalides with N. Athanatos, for the applicant. S. Georghiades, Senior Counsel of the Republic with E. Loizidou (Mrs.), for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 923 In re Manfred Mutke
(1982)TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. In the present case the applicant has applied for an order of habeas corpus after a Judge of the District Court of Limassol, on 21st August 1982, committed him to custody to await his ex tradition to the Federal Republic of Germany. 5 The committal was, apparently, based on section 9 of the Extradition of Fugitive Offenders Law, 1970 (Law 97/70), and the present application for an order of habeas corpus has been made under section 10 of that Law, which reads as follows: "10.-
(1)To Δικαστήpiov, έν πάση περιπτώσει, καθ* ήν ήθελε διατάξει τήν κράτησιν τοϋ ΰπό εκδοσιν προσώπου δυνάμει τοΰ άρθρου 9, θέλει πληροφορήσει άμα τόν ένδιαφερόμενον, els κοινήν γλώσσαν, περί τοϋ δικαιώματος αύτοΰ όπως ύποβάλη αΐτησιν δια habeas corpus προς τούτοις δέ αμελλητί κοινοποίηση τήν τοιαύτην άπόφασιν τ φ Ύπουργφ. 10 15
(2)Πρόσωπον, ούτινος διετάχθη ή κράτησις δυνάμει τοϋ ώς εΐρηται άρθρου 9 δέν δύναται δυνάμει τοϋ παρόντος Νόμου νά άποδοθηείς το Κράτοςή τήν χώραν, ήτις ήτήσατο τήν εκδοσιν αύτοϋ- 20 (α) έν πάση περιπτώσει, μέχρις ού παρέλθη διάστημα δεκαπέντε ήμερων άπό της ημέρας, καθ' ήν εξεδόθη τό περί εκδόσεως διάταγμα(β) έν ή περιπτώσει ήθελεν ύποβληθη αίτησις, δια habeas corpus έφ* όσον εκκρεμεί ή έξέτασις της υποβληθείσης αΐτήσεως. 25
(3)Τό Άνώτατον Δικαστήριον, έπιλαμβανόμενον της τοιαύτης αΙτήσεως, δύναται, μή επηρεαζόμενης οίασδήποτε ετέρας δικαιοδοσίας αύτοΰ, νά διάταξη τήν άποφυλάκισιν τοϋ ύπό εκδοσιν προσώπου, έφ' όσον ήθελε κρίνει ότι— 30 (α) λόγω της ασήμαντου φύσεως τοϋ αδικήματος, δΓ ό διώκεται ή κατεδικάσθη· ή (β) λόγω της παρόδου μακρού χρόνου, άφ* ού έγένετο ή διάπραξις τοϋ αδικήματος,ή αναλόγως της περιπτώ σεως, άφ' ού καταζητείται προς έκτισιν ποινής μετά καταδίκην αύτοϋ* ή (γ) λόγω τοϋ ότι ή κατ* αύτοϋ κατηγορία δέν έγένετο καλή τη πίστει ή έν τω συμφέροντι της δικαιοσύνης, 924 35 1 C.L.R. In re Manfred Mutke TriantafyUldes P. ή άπόδοσις αύτοΰ θα άπετέλει, λαμβανομένων ύπ' όψιν άπασών τών περιστάσεων, άδικον ή καταπιεστικόν μέτρον. 5 10 15 20
(4)Τό Άνώτατον Δικαστήριον, έπιλαμβανόμενον οίασδήποτέ τοιαύτης αίτήσεως, δύναταινά δεχθησυμπληρωματικά αποδεικτικά στοιχεία, σχετικά προς τήν άσκησιν τηςδικαι οδοσίας αύτοϋ δυνάμει τοϋ άρθρου 4 ή δυνάμει τοϋ εδαφίου
(3)τοϋ παρόντος άρθρου.
(5)Διά τους σκοπούς τοϋ παρόντος άρθρου,ήδιαδικασία διά τήν έξέτασιν αίτήσεως υποβληθείσης διά τήν εκδοσιν habeas corpus λογίζεται εκκρεμούσα μέχρις ού έκδικασθη ή κατ' αύτης τυχόν ασκηθείσα έφεσις, ή παρέλθηάπρακτος ή προθεσμία, έν ή δύναται νά άσκηθη τοιαύτη εφεσις, ή, έφ' όσον απαιτείται άδεια διά τήν άσκησιν εφέσεως, ή προΘεσμία έν ή δύναται νά αίτηθη ή παροχή της τοιαύτης α δείας". ("10.-
(1)Where a person is committed to custody under section 9, the Court shall inform him in ordinary language of his right to make an application for habeas corpus and· shall forthwith give notice of the committal to the Minister.
(2)A person committed to custody under the said section 9 shall not be returned under this Law - 25 (
- a)in any case, until the expiration of the period of fifteen days beginning with the day on' which the order for his committal is made; (
- b)if an application for habeas corpus is made in his case, so long as proceedings on that application are pending. 30
(3)On any such application the Supreme Court may, without prejudice to any other jurisdiction of the Court, order the person committed to be discharged from custody if it appears to the Court that (
- a)by reason of the trivial nature of the offence of which he is accused or was convicted; or 35 (
- b)by reason of the passage of time since he is alleged to have committed it or to have become unlawfully at large, as the case may be; or 925 TriantafyUides p. in re Manfred Mutke
(1982)(c) because the accusation against him is not made in good faith in the interests of justice, it would, having regard to all the circumstances, be unjust or oppressive to return him.
(4)On any such application the Supreme Court may receive additional evidence relevant to the exercise of theirjurisdiction undersection 4 or undersubsection
(3)of this section. 5
(5)For the purposes of this section proceedings on an application for habeas corpus shall be treated as pending 10 until any appeal in those proceedings is disposed of; and an appeal shall be treated as disposed of at the expiration of the time within which the appeal may be brought or, where leave to appeal is required, within which the appli cation for leave may be made,if the appeal is not brought 15 or the application made within that time.") Counsel for therespondenthas pointedout thatin subsection
(4)of section 10,above, thereference to"section4" should have been a reference to "section 6" of Law 97/70. Law 97/70has beenpreceded by theEuropeanConventionon 20 Extradition (Ratification) Law, 1970 (Law 95/70), but I do not think that therearises, at any rate for thepurposes of this case, the issue of whether Law 95/70and the Convention which was ratified by means of it, are, in any way, in conflict with the relevant provisions of Law 97/70,"*because in the said Con- 25 vention it is expressly provided, by means of its Article 22,that "Except where this Convention otherwise provides, the pro cedurewith regard to extradition and provisional arrest shall be governed solely by the law of the requested Party." In deciding on the fate of this appUcation for an order of 30 habeas corpus I have to examine, inter aha, whether the pro cedure prescribed by Law 97/70has been duly complied with. It is provided, by means of subsection
(5)of section 9of Law 97/70, as follows: "
(5)Έφ*όσον ή έξουσιοδότησις διά τήν εναρξιν της δια- 35 δικασίας της εκδόσεως ήθελε παρασχεθη τό δέ επιληφθέν 926 1 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 in re Manfred Mutke Triantaiyilides P. της εκδόσεως Δικαστήριον ήθελεν Ικανοποιηθη, δυνάμει των προσαχθέντων προς υποστήριξιν της αϊτήσεως εκδόσεως αποδεικτικών στοιχείων, ή των κατ* αύτης προσαχθέντων τοιούτων, ότι τό αδίκημα είς δ άφορ? ή τοιαύτη έξουσιοδότησις είναι αδίκημα δι* 6 δύναται κατά νόμον νά χωρήση έκδοσις, προς τούτοις δέ Ικανοποιηθη— (α) έν μέν τη περιπτώσει προσώπου διωκομένου διά τήν διάπραξιν τοϋ έν λόγω αδικήματος,ότι τά προσαχθέντα ενώπιον αύτοϋ αποδεικτικά στοιχεία είναι επαρκή ώστε νά δικαιολογώσι τήν παραπομπήναύτοϋ εϊςδίκην διά τό έν λόγω αδίκημα, έφ' όσον τούτο διεπράττετο εντός της δικαιοδοσίας τοϋ Δικαστηρίου· (β) έν δέ τη περιπτώσει προσώπου καταζητούμενου δ<ά τήν εκτισιν ποινής επιβληθείσης αύτφ διάτήνδιάπραξιν τοϋ τοιούτου αδικήματος, ότι τφ οντι κατεδικάσθη καί δτι παρανόμως παραμένει ελεύθερον, τό Δικαστήριον θέλει διατάξει τήν προφυλάκισιν αύτοϋ μέχρις ού χωρήση ή έκδοσις, έκτάς έάν ή £κδοσιςαπαγορεύ εται δυνάμει ετέρας τινός προνοίας τοϋ παρόντος Νόμου· έν εναντία περιπτώσει θέλ?ι διατάξει όπως τό είς 6 άφορςί ή αίτησις εκδόσεως πρόσωπον άφεθη ελεύθερον". ("
(5)Where an authority to proceed has been issued in respect of the person arrested and the Court of committal is satisfied, after hearing any evidence tendered in support of the request for the extradition of that person or on behalf of that person, that the offence to which the authori ty relates is an extradition offence and is further satisfied(
- a)where that person is accused of the offence, that the evidence would be sufficient to warrant his trial for that offence if it had been committed within the ju risdiction of the Court; (
- b)where that person is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of the offence, that he has been so convicted and appears to be so at large, ^ the Court shall» unless his committal is prohibited by any other provision of this Law, commit him 1o cuslody to awai' his extradition thereunder; but if the Court is not 927 Triantaf)Hides P. In re Manfred Mutke
(1982)so satisfied or if the committal of that person is so pro hibited, the Court shall discharge him from custody."). As regards the "evidence", to which reference is made in the aforementioned subsection
(5), there should be borne in mind the provisions of section 13 of Law 97/70, which show, in my 5 opinion, that the evidence to be adduced before the "Court of committal" - in this case the Diitrict Court of Limassol - need not be always oral and on oath. The said section 13 reads as follows: "(13.-
(1)Είς,πασαν διαδικασίαν διεξαγομένην δυνάμει τού παρόντος Νόμου, περιλαμβανομένης κα! της διαδικασίας της άφορώσης είς τήν αΐτησιν εκδόσεως habeas corpus, άναφορικως προς κρατούμενον, δυνάμει τοϋ παρόντος Νόμου, πρόσωπον— 10 (α) παν, δεόντως κεκυρωμένον, έγγραφον, φερόμενον ώς 15 περιέχον ενορκον μαρτυρικήν κατάθεσιν παρασχεθεϊσαν είς Κράτος συνάψαν συνθήκην εκδόσεως μετά της Δημο κρατίας ή είς καθωρισμένην Χώραν της Κοινοπολιτείας, γίνεται άποδεκτόν ώς άποδεικτικόν στοιχεΐον των έν αύτφ εκτιθεμένων γεγονότων 20 (β) πάν, δεόντως κεκυρωμένον έγγραφον, φερόμενου ώς έγγραφου άποδεικτικόν στοιχεΐον ή ώς αντίγραφου τοιούτου έγγραφου κατατεθέντος είς οίανδήποτε δικαστικήν διαδικασίαν διεξαχθεϊσαν είς τό τοιούτον Κράτος ή χώραν, γίνεται άποδεκτάν_ώς άποδεικτικόν στοιχείου- 25 (γ) παν, δεόντως κεκυρωμένον έγγραφον, πιστοποιούν ότι πρόσωπον τι κατεδικάσθη κατά τήν καθωρισμένην 1 ευτίρ εγγράφω ήμερομηυίαυ,δι αδίκημα κατά τό δίκαιου οιουδήποτε τοιούτου Κράτους ή χώρας ή τμήματος αύτώυ, γίνεται δεκτού ώς άποδεικτικόν στοιχείου τοϋ 30 γεγονότος καί της ημερομηνίας της τοιαύτηςκαταδίκης.
(2)Διά τους σκοπούς τοϋ παρόντος άρθρου έγγραφου τι λογίζεται ώς δεόντως κεκυρωμένον τοιούτο— (α) έν τη περιπτώσει έγγραφου περιέχοντος μαρτυρικήν κατάθεσιν παρασχεθεΐσαν ώς έν τοϊς ανωτέρω, έφ* 35 Οσον ήθελε πιστοποιηθη ύπό δικαστού ή λειτουργού τοϋ ώς είρηται Κράτους ή χώρας ότι τούτο είναι τό 928 1 C.L.R In re Manfred Mutke Triantafyllides P. πρωτότυπου έγγραφου, τό περιέχον ή άναγράφον τήν τοιαύτην μαρτυρικήνκατάθεσιϋή πιστόυαντίγραφου αύτοϋ5 (β) έν τη περιπτώσει έγγραφου αποδεικτικού στοιχείου, έφ* όσον ήθελε πιστοποιηθη ώς έν τοις ανωτέρω ότι είναι τό πρωτότυπου τοϋ ούτω κατατεθέντος έγγραφου ή πιστόυ άντίγραφοναύτοϋ' 10 (γ) έν τη περιπτώσει έγγραφου βεβαιοϋντος τήν καταδίκην προσώπου, έφ* Οσου τοϋτο ήθελε πιστοποιηθη ώς έυ τοις άυωτέρω, 15 καί έν πάση τοιαύτη περιπτώσει τό έγγραφον κυροϋται είτε δι'ενόρκου τινός μαρτυρίας εΐτε διάτης επισήμου σφραγϊδος Υπουργού τοϋ Κράτους μεθ* ού συνήφθη συνθήκη εκδόσεως μετά της Δημοκρατίας, ή, αναλόγως της περιπτώσεως, καθωρισμένης χώρας της Κοινοπολιτείας. .. 20
(3)Έν τ φ παρόντι άρθρω ό ορός ένορκος περιλαμβάνει καί έπίσημον βεβαίωσιν ή δήλωσιν ουδέν τώυ έυτ φ παρόντι άρθρω διαλαμβανομένων αποκλείει τήν παραδοχήυ οιουδή ποτε έγγραφου ώς αποδεικτικού στοιχείου, έφ* όσον τό τοιούτον έγγραφον είναι παραδεκτού ώς άποδεικτικόν στοι χεΐον ανεξαρτήτως τώυ προνοιών τοϋ παρόντος άρθρου." ("13)-
(1)In any proceedings under this Law, including proceedings on an application for habeas corpus in respect of a person in custody thereunder - 25 30 35 (
- a)a document, duly authenticated, which purports to set out evidence given on oath in a treaty State or desi gnated commonwealth country shall be admissible as evidence of the matters stated therein; (
- b)a document, duly authenticated, which purports to have been received in evidence, or to be a copy of a document so received, in any proceedings in any such State or country frhall be admissible in evidence; (
- c)a document, duly authenticated, which certifies that a person was convicted on a date specified in the document of an offence against the law of, or of a part of, any such State or country ihall be admissible as evidence of the fact and date of Ihe conviction. 929 Trlantnfyllides P. IDre Manfred Mutke
(1982)
(2)Adocument shall bedeemed to beduly authenticated for the purposes of this section (
- a)in the case of a document purporting to set out evidence given as aforesaid, if the document purports to be certified by a judge, or magistrate or officer in 5 orof theStateorcountryinquestiontobetheoriginal document containing or recording that evidence or a true copy of such a document; (
- b)in the case of a document which purports to have been received in evidence as aforesaid or to bea copy 10 of a document so received, if the document purports to be certified as aforesaid to have been, or to be a true copy of a document which has been, so received; (
- c)inthecaseof a document which certifies that a person was convicted as aforesaid, if the document purports 15 to be certified as aforesaid, and in any such case the document is authenticated either bythe oath of a witness orbythe official seal of a Minister of the treaty State or the designated commonwealth country, as the case may be. 20
(3)In this section 'oath' includes affirmation or declaration; and nothing in this section shall prejudice the admission in evidence of any document which is admissible in evidence apart from this section."). Sections9, 10and 13,above,ofourLaw97/70appear tohave 25 been modelled on, respectively, sections 7, 8 and 11 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1967,in England (see Halsbury's Statutes of England, 3rd ed., vol. 13, p. 286). It has been submitted by counsel for the applicant that the Court of commitlal had no evidence befoie it on the basis of 30 whichthere could havebeenmade thecommittal orderwhichis now challenged by means of an application for an order of habeas corpus. On the other hand, I have been referred by counsel for the respondent to documents forwarded to the Govemmenl of Cyprus when the Government of the Federal 35 Republicof Germany requested theextradition oftheapplicant, namely an "International warrant for arrest" issued by the 930 1 CX.R. In re Manfred Mutke Triantafyllides P. Local Court at Osterode am Harz on 19th July 1982and setting out, in detail, the offences in respect of which the extradition of the applicant is being requested, and, also, a certificate issued by the aforesaid Local Court on 19th July 1982 regarding the 5 relevant provisions of the German Criminal Code. As far as I can see there is nothing in the documents which were placed before the Court of commiital and before me which could be regarded as "evidence", in the sense of sections 9
(5)and 13 of Law 97/70, which was adduced in support of the re10 quest for the extradition of the applicant and which could be treated as evidence "sufficient lo warrant" the applicant's "trial" for the offences concerned if they "had been committed within the jurisdiction" of the Court of committal. It has to be noted, further, that'the Court of committal itself, 15 in its relevant ruling, does not appear to have made a finding that there was placed before it evidence of the aforementioned nature and no such finding has been pointed to me in the said ruling by counsel for the respondent. That finding was an essential part of the decision to commit the applicant to custody 20 to await his extradition and it should have been made clearly and expressly, becauss this is a matter affecting the liberty,of a person. For these reasons I find that the order made, as aforesaid, by the District Court of Limassol,wasnot madewith due complian25 ce with the provisions of subsection
(5)of section 9 of Law 97/70 and, consequently, an order for habeas corpus, in the exercise of the powers of the Court under section 10 of Law 97/70, as well as under Article 155.4 of the Constitution, has to bemade, with the result that the applicant should be discharged 30 from custody. 35 As no costs have been claimed by counsel for the applicant I do not propose to make any order regarding the costs of the present proceedings. Application granted. No order as to costs. 931