(IMS) 1984 December 11 [A. Loizou, DEMETRIADES, LORIS, JJ.] GEORGHIOS PONIROS, Appellant, v. THE POLICE, Respondents. (Criminal Appeal No. 4557). Criminal Procedure—Trial in Criminal Cases—Prima facie case —Principles applicable. Criminal Procedure—Trial in Criminal Cases—Evaluation of the evidence—Primarily the task of the trial Judge— Principles on which Court of Appeal interferes with findings of fact based on the credibility of witnesses—Onus on appellant to satisfy Court of Appeal that the trial Judge was wrong in believing the prosecution witnesses and disbelieving the appellant and his witnesses. 5 The appeUant was found guilty of the offences of 10 common assault and disturbance, contrary to sections 242 and 95, respectively, of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154. Upon appeal against conviction it was mainly contended: (a) That the appellant ought not to have been called upon to defend himself owing to contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution on material points. (b) That the trial Court ignored the contradictions of the witnesses, for the prosecution whilst it dealt with unimportant contradictions in the testimony of witnesses called by the defence. Held,
(1)that having gone through the record of the trial this Court is satisfied that the trial Judge properly applied the law to the facts of this 1Q 15 20 2 C.L.R 5 10 IS 20 25 30 Poniros .v. Polk» particular case; that definitely one could not seriously allege that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was so discredited as u result of cross-examination that no tribunal would be willing to act upon it; that on the contrary the material before the trial Judge was such that rightly led him to the conclusion that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case and correctly rejected the submission of. counsel for the appellant; accordingly contention (a) must fail (see Azinas and Another v. Police
(1981)2 C.L.R. 9).
(2)That the question of the evaluation of the evidence adduced is primarily the task of the trial Judges who have the opportunity of hearing the witnesses and watching their demeanour in the witness-box; that this Court will not interfere with findings of fact based on the credibility of witnesses unless it is satisfied that such findings were not reasonably open to the trial Judge; and that the onus is on the appellant to satisfy us on appeal that the trial Judge was wrong in believing the prosecution witnesses and disbelieving the accused and his witnesses (see Yiannakou v. The Police
(1982)2 C.L.R. 37); that the appellant failed to satisfy this Court that the trial Judge went wrong in his findings which were reasonably open to him in the light of the evidence adduced; accordingly the appeal must be dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Cases referred to: Azinas and Another v. Police
(1981)2 C.L.R. 9; Yiannakou v. Police
(1982)2 C.L.R. 37. 35 Appeal against conviction. Appeal against conviction by Georghios Poniros who was convicted on the 1st June, 1984 at the District Court of Nicosia (Criminal Case No. 2327/84) on one count of the. 11 Poniros v. Police
(1986)offence of common asault contrary to section 242 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154 and on one count of the offence of disturbance contrary to section 95 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154 and was sentenced by Aristodemou, DJ. to pay £12.— fine on count 1, £8.— fine on count 2 and was 5 further bound over in the sum of £50.— for six months to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. E. Vrahimi (Mrs.) with A. Christophidou (Miss), for the appellant. A. Angelides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. 10 A. Loizou J.: The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Mr. Justice Loris. LORIS J.: This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia in Criminal Case No. 2327/84, 15 whereby the appellant was found guilty of common assault, contrary to s. 242 of Cap. 154, and disturbance, contrary to s. 95 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154 and sentenced by Aristodemou J. to a fine of £12.— on the first count and £8.— on the second, and was further bound over in 2 0 the sum of £50.— for a period of six months to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The present appeal was taken against conviction only and was argued on the following two grounds: (a) The accused-appellant ought not to have been 25 called upon to defend himself owing to contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution on material points. (b) The trial Court ignored the contradictions of the witnesses for the prosecution whilst it dealt with 30 unimportant contradictions in the testimony of witnesses called by the defence. As regards ground (a) it is apparent from the concise record of the trial on this topic that the learned trial Judge properly directed*himself to the law applicable by referring to the leading case of Azinas and another v. Police
(1981)2 C.L.R. 9. 12 35 2 C.L.R. Poniros v. Police Lotto J. Having gone ourselves through the record of the trial we are satisfied that the learned trial Judge properly applied the law to the facts of this particular case. Definitely one could not seriously allege that the evidence of prose5 cution witnesses was so discredited as a result of crossexamination that no tribunal would be willing to act upon it. On the contrary the material before the trial Judge was such that rightly led him to the conclusion that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case and correctly in 10 our view rejected the submission of counsel for the appellant. This ground therefore should fail. Ground (b) of the appeal in effect amounts to the usual complaint that the verdict is against the weight of evidence. It has been repeatedly emphasized by this Court that 15 the question of the evaluation of the evidence adduced is primarily the task of the trial Judges who have the opportunity of hearing the witnesses and watching their demeanour in the witness-box; and this Court will not interfere with findings of fact based on the credibility of witnesses 20 unless it is satisfied that such findings were not reasonably open to the trial Judge; and the onus is on the appellant to satisfy us on appeal that the trial Judge was wrong in believing the prosecution witnesses and disbelieving the accused and his witnesses. (Yiannakou v. The Police
(1982)25 2 C.L.R. 37). We think it unnecessary to embark on a detailed analysis of the facts of the present case; suffice it to say that the appellant failed to satisfy us that the trial Judge went wrong in his findings which to our mind were reasonably 30 open to him in the light of the evidence adduced. For the above reasons the present appeal is hereby dismissed. Appealdismissed. 13