(1983)1982 Februaiy 26 [TRlANTAMLLIDhS, Ρ , DEMfcTRIADES. SAVVIDES, JJ.] ANDREAS P0UR1S AND ANOTHER Appellants, 'J HE REPUBLIC. Respondent (Ciinnnal Appeals Aoi 4013,4015). /Hidings ojJac tmadeby trial Court—Based oncredibdity oj witnessesAppeal— Where e\idence has been accepted by a trial Court as aediblc discrepancies and contradictions in such evidence will not hetreated by the Court of Appeal asareasonfor interfering with a conviction if it is not satisfied that, in the light of all the 5 evidence adduced at the trial, the conviction is unsafe Criminal Law—Endeavouring by armedforce to procure an alteration in the Government of the Republic—And carrying on war or a warlike undeitaking—Sections 41 and 40 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154, respectively—Armed attack against police station— Manning a road block whilst being armedandarresting a number of law-abiding citizens—Coupled with the fact that such acts were committed in connection with the abortive coup d^etat oj July, 1974—Conviction in respect of above offencesabundantly warranted. Evidence—Expert evidence—Principles governing 10 15 cogency of Criminal Procedure—Evidence—Evidence in rebuttal—Principles governing calling of by the Prosecution Criminal Law—Alibi—Manner in which Court proceeds after re jection of 20 Judges' Rules—Ruks of Practice jor the Police which do not entail the circumscription of judicial power—Even if Judges' Rules were infnnged, in this case appellant's statement was rightly admitted in evidence once the trial Court was satisfied that it was free and voluntary 25 170 2 CUK. 5 Pouris and Another v. Republic The appellants were found guilty on a count charging them that, together with other persons, between 15th and 17th July 1974, they endeavoured by armed force, contrary to section 41 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154, to procure an alteration in the Government of the Republic, and on another count charging them that, together with other persons, and during the aforesaid period of time, they carried on war or a warlike undertaking, contrary to section 40 of Cap. 154, against persons supporting the Government of the Republic. 10 The trial Court found that the appellants on Ϊ 5th July 1974 took part in an armed attack against Moni police station with the result that, after some fighting, the policemen who were defending the station had to surrender it to appellant I and the other gunmen who were attacking it with him. 15 Furthermore, the trial Court found that the appellants on 16th July 1974 were, while being armed, manning a road block at the junction of the road leading to Pareklishia village from the Nicosia to Limassol main road, and, also, that on 17th July 1974 appellant I arrested a number of law-abiding citizens at Akrounta village, including a priest, and, after having, together with other gunmen who accompanied him, seriously illtreated them, they staged a mock execution of the priest and of another one of the said citizens. 20 25 30 53 40 Counsel for appellant 1 argued that the relevant findings of the trial Court, connecting appellant I with the unlawful activities in question, were not safe and he invited theCourt to set aside, onthis ground, his convictions on both thesaid counts. He, also, contended that the trial Court has wrongly accepted as correct expert evidence regarding the handwriting in which t certain entries were made on 15th July 1974 in station diaries and other records of Moni police station. Such handwriting was identified as being that of appellant 1. Appellant 3 gave evidence putting forward an alibi and called witnesses to support his alibi. The trial Court rejected his evidence and that of his witnesses! Counsel for this appel lant mainly contended that the trial Court was wrong in doing so and that it wrongly allowed the Prosecution to call evidence in rebuttal as regards the alleged alibi. It was, also, contended that a statement which he gave to the police on 26th January 1978 was wrongly admitted in evidence because it was allege171 Pouns ,ιικ! \nollicr \ Republic
(1983)<ilv obtained in a manner inconsistent with the Judges' Rules η Fngland Held (I) with ic^aid to the appeal oj appellant I
(1)That where evidence has been accepted by a tual Couit as credible discrepancies and contradictions in such 5 evidence will not be treated bv tl'is Couit as a leason lor interfering on appeal with a conviction if this Court is not satisfied that, in the lig! ι of all the evidence addu ced at the tual, the conviction is unsafe, and that,therefoie, theie is no reason at all to interfere with the 10 conviction of appellant 1 Held, fuithei, the fact that appellant I was found to have committed the aforementioned unlawful acts against the security forces of the Republic and law-abiding citizens, who were at that time supporters of the Government 15 of the Republic, coupled with the fact that he committed all the said acts in connection with the abortive coup d'etat against the Government of the Republic on 15th July 1974,warrant abundantly the conviction of appellant I in respect ot both the aforementioned counts 20
(2)That in the light of the principles regarding the cogency of expert evidence which were expounded in, inter alia Anastassiades ι The Republic
(1977)2 C L.R 97, there is no difficulty in holding that such expert evidence was rightly rehed on by the trial Court for the purpose 25 of establishing that the handwriting of the entries concerned in the diaries and records of the Mom police station was that of appellant I Held, (II) with icgard to the appeal of appellant 3
(1)That there was no contravention of the principles 30 governing the calling of evidence in rebuttal by the prosecution, and that, consequently, such evidence was rightly received (see, inter aha, the textbook 'Cri minal Procedure in Cyprus' by Loizou and Pikis (i975) pp. 119, 120) 35
(2)That after finding that his alibi was false the trial Court did not act in a manner incompatible with the relevant principles which were expounded in, inter aha, Katsiamalts ι. The Republic
(1980)2 C L R 107; and that 172 2 C.L.R. Pouris and Another v. Republic independently of the rejection of the alibi of appellant 3 there was ample evidence warranting his conviction on both counts. 5 10
(3)That bearing in mind that the Judges' Rules in so far as they are applicable in Cyprus, are rules of practice for the police which do not entail the circumscriction of judicial power (see Azinas v. Police
(1981)2 C.L.R. at p.64), even if it is correct that there was an infringement of the Judges' Rules in the present instance, the said statement of appellant 3 was rightly admitted .in evidence once the trial Court was satisfied that it was free and voluntary. Appeals dismissed. Cases referred to: 15 Karamanis v. The Police
(1977)2 C.L.R.92 at p.96; Constantinides v. The Republic
(1978)2 C.L.R.337 at p.378; Fasouliotis v. The Police
(1979)2 CX.R.180 at p. 185; Katsiamalis v. The Republic
(1980)2 C.L.R.107 at pp.112-114; Soulis v. The Police
(1973)2 C.L.R.68; 20 Matsentidesv. The Police
(1973)2 C.L.R.250 at pp. 253, 254; Anastassiades v' Republic
(1977)2 C.L.R.97; Azinas v. The Police
(1981)2 C.L.R.9 at p. 64; Papadopoullos v. Republic
(1980)2 C.L.R.10 at p.34. Appealsagainstconviction. 25 Appeals againstconvictionbyAndreasPourisandanotherwho were convicted on the 9th March, 1979 at the Assize Court of Limassol (Criminal Case No. 22534/77) on one count of the offence of procuring an alteration of the Government of the Republic contrary to section 41 of the Criminal Code Cap.154 30 and on one count of the ofTence of carrying on war or warlike undertakingcontrary to section40of theCriminal CodeCap.154 and were sentenced by Loris, P.D.C., HadjiTsangaris, S.D.J. and Chrysostomis, D.J. to seventeen years' imprisonment and fourteen years' imprisonment on each count respectively, the 35 sentences to run concurrently. -173 Pouris and Another v. Republic
(1983)A. Eftychiou, for the appellants. Ml. Kyprianou, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDESP.read thefollowingjudgment ofthe Court. 5 Inthecourseof thehearingofCriminal AppealsNos.4013-4019, whichwere filed bythesevenaccused incriminal case No.22534 /77, in the District Court of Limassol, allthe appellants, except the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 4013,Andreas Pouris, and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 4015,Charalambos 10 Fournaris - (whowere accused 1and3,respectively, at the trial before the Assize Court which convicted them and who are appellants 1and 3, respectively, in the present proceedings before us) - abandoned their appeals against conviction anddecided to pursue only their appeals against sentence. 15 We have thought fit, at thepresent stage of the proceedings, to decide on the appeals against conviction of appellants 1 and 3. They were both found guilty on a count charging them that, together with other persons, between 15thand 17thJuly 1974, 20 they endeavoured by armed force, contrary to section 41 ofthe Criminal Code,Cap. 154,toprocureanalterationinthe Government ofthe Republic, andonanother count charging them that, together with other persons, and during the aforesaid period of time, they carried on warora warlike undertaking, contrary to 25 section 40of Cap. 154,against persons supporting the Government of the Republic. The trial Court found that appellant 1on 15thJuly 1974 took pail in an armed attack against Moni police station with the result that, after some fighting, thepolicemen whowere defend- 30 ingthestation hadto surrender it totheappellant andthe other gunmen who were attacking it with him. Furthermore, the trial Court found that appellant 1on 16th July 1974 was, while being armed, manning a road-block atthe junction of the road leading to Pareklissia village from the 35 Nicosia to Limassol main road, and, also, that on 17th July 1974 he arrested a number of law-abiding citizens at Akrounta 174 2 C.L.R. Pouris and Another v. Republic Triantaf>llide<> I». village, including a priest, and, after having, together with other gunmen who.accompanied"him, seriously illtreated them, they staged a mock execution of the priest and of another one of the said citizens. 5 The fact that appellant 1 was found to have committed the aforementioned unlawful acts against the security forces of the Republic and law-abiding citizens, who were at that time supporters of the Government of the Republic, coupled with the fact that he committed all the said acts in connection with the 10 abortive coup d'etat against the Government of the Republic on 15th July 1974, warrant abundantly the conviction of appellant 1 in respect of both the aforementioned counts. Counsel for appellant I has strenuously argued that the relevant findings of the trial Court, connecting appellant Iwiththe 15 unlawful activities in question, were not safe and he invited us to set aside,on this ground, hisconvictions on both the said counts. The principles on the basis of which this Court approaches on appeal findings of fact which were made by trial Courts. especially when such findings are founded, as in the present 20 instance, on the credibility of witnesses, have been set out in cases such as Karamanis v. The Police,
(1977)2 C.L.R. 92, 96. Constantinidesv. The Republic,
(1978)2 C.L.R. 337, 378, FasouHotisv. The Police,
(1979)2 C.L.R. 180, 185 and Katsiamalisv. 77ie Republic,
(1980)2 C.L.R. 107, 112-114. 25 It has, also, been held that where evidence has been accepted by a trial Court as credible discrepancies and contradictions in such evidence will not be treated by this Court as a reason for interfering on appeal with a conviction if this Court is not satisfied that, in the light of all the evidence adduced at the trial, 30 the conviction is unsafe (see, in this respect, Soulis v. ThePolice.
(1973)2 C.L.R. 68, Matsentides v. The Police,
(1973)2 C.L.R. 250, 253, 254 and Constantinides case, supra, 378). With the above in mind we see no reason at all to interfere with the conviction of appellant 1; and, actually, the evidence 35 against hiii was really overwhelming. It has, also, been contended that the trial Court has wrongly accepted as correct expert evidence regarding the handwriting in which certain entries were made on 15th July 1974 in station 175 Triantafj Hides P. Pouris and Another v. Republic
(1983)diaries and other records of Moni police station. Such handwriting was identified as being that of appellant 1. Wehaveexamined theexpert evidence inquestion in thelight of the principlesregarding thecogency ofexpert evidencewhich were expounded in, later alia, Anastassiades v. The Republic, 5
(1977)2 C.L.R. 97, and we have no difficulty in holding that such expert evidencewasrightly relied on bythetrialCourt for the purpose of establishing that the handwriting of the entries concerned in thediaries and records of the Moni police station was that of appellant 1; and, indeed, the subversive nature of 10 statements forming part of such entries is so revealing of his intentionsatthattimeastorenderhisparticipation inthearmed raidagainst thesaidpolicestationconductwhich,inouropinion isby itself sufficient to warrant hisconviction, without eventhe flimsiest shadow of a doubt, in respect of both the offences of 15 which he was found guilty. For all the foregoing reasons we find no difficulty at all in dismissing the appeal of appellant 1 against his conviction. Appellant 3 was found by the trial Court tohavetaken part in thearmedraid against Monipolicestation on 15thJuly 1974, 20 to have been involved in the manning of the aforementioned road-block at the Pareklissia road junction on 16th July, 1974, and to have participated in arresting law-abiding citizens of Akrounta village on 17th July, 1974. Unlike appellant I, who did not give evidence on oath but 25 elected to make a statement from the dock, appellant 3 gave evidence putting forward an alibi and called, also, witnesses to support his alibi; but the trial Courtrejected his evidence and that of his said witnessesand wecannot agree withcounsel for. this appellant that the trial Courtwas wrong in doing so. 30 Counselfor appellant 3hasarguedthatthetrialCourtwrongly allowed the prosecution to call evidence in rebuttal as regards the alleged alibi of appellant 3. The principles governing the calling of evidence in rebuttal by the prosecution in a criminal caseare to befound in, inter alia, the textbook "Criminal Pro- 35 cedure in Cyprus" by Loizou and Pikis
(1975)pp.119, 120,and weneed not repeat them inthisjudgment onceagain. Having perused theruling of thetrialCourt byvirtueof which the prosecution was allowed to adduce rebutting evidence we are sa176 2 C.L.R. Pouris and Another v.] Republic Triantafyllides P. tisfied that there has been no contravention of these principles and that, consequently, such evidence was rightly received. Moreover, we cannot accept as correct the submission of counsel for appellant 3 that the trial Court, after finding that 5 his alibi was false, relied on this finding in order to reach with certainty the conclusion that his guilt had been proved beyond reasonable doubt, in a manner incompatible with the relevant principles which were expounded in, inter alia, the Katsiamalis case, supra. Anyhow, we are of the opinion that independent10 ly of the rejection of the alibi of appellant 3 there was ample evidence warranting his conviction on both counts. It has been contended, also, on behalf of appellant 3, that a statement which he gave to the police on 26th January 1978 was wrongly admitted in evidence because it was allegedly 15 obtained in a manner inconsistent with the Judges' Rules in England. Bearing in mind that the said Judges' Rules were found by our Supreme Court in Azinas v. The Police,
(1981)2 C.L.R. 9, 64, to be, in so far as they are applicable in Cyprus, rules of practice for the police which do not entail the circurn20 scription of judicial power, we are of the view that, even if it is correct that there was an infringement of the Judges' Rules in the present instance, the said statement of appellant 3 was rightly admitted in evidence once the trial Court was satisfied that it was free and voluntary. 25 In the light of all the foregoing wefind that there isno reason to interfere with the conviction, on both the counts in question, of appellant 3. We would like to conclude thisjudgment by stressing that not only we have not been satisfied by counsel for appellants 1and 30 3, on whom the relevant onus lay, that their convictions should be interfered with by this Court on appeal, but wecan go so far as to say that weare fully satisfied, beyond*even a lurking doubt (see, in this respect, irter alia, Papadopoullos v. The Republic,
(1980)2 C.L.R. 10, 34), that such convictions were amply 35 warranted by the evidence adduced and that, consequently, the appeals of both these appellants against their convictions should be dismissed. Appeals dismissed. 177