1982 May 3 f [A. Loizou, SAVVIDES, STYLIANIDES, JJ.] AMVROSIOS ANTONIOU, Appellant, v. THE POLICE, Respondents. (Criminal Appeal No. 4303). Finaingsoffact made by trial Court—Based on credibility of witnesses —Duly warranted by the evidence adduced. 5 Administration of fiistice—Problems to—Caused by indiscriminate filing of appeah—Need for legislative action limiting where necessary and with the necessary safeguard the right of appeal in the interests of the better administration of justice. Appeal—Right of appeal—Limit of. 10 15 The appellant appealed against his convictionfor taking part in a fight in a public place and his appeal·turned solely on the findings of fact of the trial Judge based on the credibility of witnesses. The Court of Appeal dismissing the appeal on (he ground that the findings of the trial Judge were duly warranted by the evidence adduced and there was nothing to lendet rulnerable the evaluation made by him of the credibility of the witnesses observed: (a) That the indiscriminate filing of appeals, as the present, in recent years has created serious problems for the administration ofjustice burdening the Supreme Court with unnecessary litigation. 20 (b) That the time is ripe for legislative action limiting where necessary and with the necessary safeguaids the right of appeal in the interests of the better administration of justice. Appeal dismissed. 109 Antonioa v. Police
(1982)Appeal against conviction. Appeal against conviction by Amvrosios Antoniou who was convicted on the 18th February, 1982 at the District Court of Nicosia (Criminal Case No. 17958/81) on two counts of the offences of taking part in a fight and of creating a noise in a 5 public place contrary to sections 89, 90and 20of the Criminal Code Cap. 154 and was bound over by S. Nicolaides, D.J., in the sum of £100.—for one year to keep the peace and be of good behaviour on the first count and was sentenced to pay £5.—fine on the second count. G. Papatheodorou,for the appellant. A. Frangos, Senior Counselof the Republic,for the respondents. 10 A.LoizouJ.gavethefollowingjudgmentof theCourt. This is an appeal by the appellant against his conviction for taking 15 part in a fight in a public place, to wit, in Salamis Avenue in Nicosia on the24th day ofSeptember, 1981,contrary tosection 89of theCriminal Code, 154,and alsofor creating at the same time and place a noise without reasonable cause in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace, contrary to sections 95 20 and 20 of the Code. This is one of those appeals whereby thefindingsof fact of the trial Court based on the credibility of the witnesses are challenged, the ground of appeal being that having regard to the evidence adduced, the conviction was unreasonable, 25 The facts as found by the trial Judge are as follows: The appellantistheownerofakioskatSalamisAvenueand ordered a sign-post tobemadebyaccused 1 at thetrial andhis partner, Andreas Klonaris, one of the prosecution witnesses, which they did and which accused 1installed on the 23rd September 39 withthehelpoftheappellant. Intheafternoon ofthefollowing day thesetwo partners metthe appellant and they had a heated discussion about thepricetobepaidfor thesignand upon their refusal to make a discount, the appellant threw the money for this sign at Klonaris and asked them to get out of his kiosk 35 using also an insulting word. Accused 1replied that hewould leave when he pleased and that he would call the Police and report him for insulting him. He proceeded then to the phone whichwason oneof thewindowsof the kioskand tried to dial the Police. The appellant rushed at him, pushed him away, 40 110 2 C.L.R. Antoaiou v. Police A. Loizou J. hemovedfor apaceortwoandthentheycametogripsand both fell on the ground stillfightingand hitting each other. Whilst this incident was taking place on the pavement of Salamis Avenue, a lot of people gathered and tried to separate them. 5 Thetrial Judge relied on the evidence of the witnessesfor the prosecution and the evidence given on oath by thefirstaccused at the trial who incriminated the appellant and supported by . . jygtestimony the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution. Alltheconstituent elements of theoifences for which theappel10 lant and the co-accused were found guilty were established by the evidence as accepted by the trial Judge. We find no merit in this appeal. Thefindingsof the trial Judge were duly warranted by the evidence adduced and there was nothing whatsoever to render vulnerable the evaluation •15 madebyhimof thecredibility ofwitnesses. The indiscriminate filing of appeals, as the present, in recent years has created serious problems for the administration of justice burdening the Supreme Court with unnecessary litigation. In our view the time is ripe for legislative action limiting where necessary 20 and with the necessary safeguards the right of appeal, in the interests of the better administration of justice. For all the above reasons this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Ill