.3 of the Constitution—And issue whether or not it could have been issuedin the circumstances it wasapplied 5 for—Constitute prima facie case. Warant of arrest—Judicial warrant of arrest—Whether reasoned
.3 of the Constitution—Alleged participation in a conspiracy to pervert or defeat the course ofjustice by giving false evidence at the trial of a Civil action—Whether warrant 10 of arrest could be issued in respect of such alleged participation by a Judge, other than the trial Judges in such action, and whilst it was still being heard by them and before it could be known whether or not the evidence given by applicant at such trial was believed by the trial Judges. 15 Following the arrest of the applicant, on the strength of a judicial warrant of arrest, he applied for leave to apply for an order of certiorari quashing the warrant of arrest. Held, that since there arises the issue whether or not the warrant in question is "reasoned"
.3 20 of the Constitution and the issue whether or not the said warrant could have been issued in the circumstances in which it was applied for by the Police, namely for the arrest of the applicant in respect of his alleged participation in a conspiracy to pervert or defeat the course ofjustice by giving false evidence at the trial 25 of a civil action (No. 1121/79 in the District Court of Nicosia) while such action was still being heard by Judges of the District Court of Nicosia other than the Judge who has issued the warrant and, thus, before it could be known whether or not the evidence 872 1 C.L.R. -5 In re Andreas Georghiades given by the applicant at such trial was believed by the trial Judges, a prima facie case hasbeen sufficiently made out soas to justify the granting of the applied for by applicant leave; and that, consequently, leave is granted to theapplicant tofile an application for an order of certiorari.. <' Application granted- Application. Application for leave to apply for an order of certiorari quashing thewarrant of arrest issued bya Senior District Judge 10 in Nicosia against the applicant. L. Papaphilippou with E. Lemonaris and Chr.Christofides, for the applicant. Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read thefollowing decision. Thepresent 15 application was filed on the 27th July 1981after the applicant had been arrested on thesame dayon thestrength ofa warrant of arrest which wasissued bya Senior District Judge in Nicosia. On the 28th July 1981, after an application for an order remanding the applicant into custody was refused and, corise20 quently, he was set free, counsel for the applicant withdrew that part of the present application which relates to an order of habeas corpus and pursued only the application for leave to applyforanorder ofcertiorari quashingtheaforesaid warrant of arrest. 25 In view of certain developments, to which I need not refer in detail, this application wasleft in abeyance as it waspossible that itwould bediscontinued; but,eventually, counsel appearing for theapplicant hasinformed the Court that the applicant still seeks leave to apply for an order of certiorari quashing the 30 warrant of arrest in question. At this stage 1do not have to decide whether or not, in the circumstances ofthe present case, such warrant canbe quashed by means of an order of certiorari, especially since after it - hasbeen executed it isnolonger operativeina manner entailing 35 any adverse for the applicant consequences. All that I have to decide is whether the applicant has made out a prima facie case entitling him to be granted leave to file 873 j Triantafyllides P. In re Andreas Georghiades P.
Secondly, whether or not the said warrant could have been issued in the circumstances in which it was applied for by the 10 Police, namely for the arrest of the applicant in respect of his alleged participation in a conspiracy to pervert or defeat the course of justice by giving false evidence at the trial of civil action (No. 1121/79 in the District Court of Nicosia) while such actionwasstill beingheard byJudgesoftheDistrict Court 15 of Nicosia other than the Judge who has issued the warrant and, thus, before it could beknown whether or not theevidence given by the applicant at such trial was believed by the trial Judges. Consequently, leave is granted to the applicant to file, as 20 applied for by him, an application for an order of certiorari; and such application should be filed within one month from today. Application granted. 874
AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.