(1987)1C.L.R. 1987 FEBRUARY 14 [STYUAN1DES J] IN THE MATTER OFAN APPLICATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF MR CHARAL^MBOS THEOPHANOUS ARGYRIDES AGAINST WHOM A RULING AND/OR AN ORDER COMMITTINGHIMFOR TRIAL WERE MADE BY THE DISTRICTCOURT OF NICOSIA (BY Η Η Ε PAPADOPOULOU, AG DJ )ONTHE 10 1.87 FOR AN ORDER OF CERTIORARI (Application No 16/87) Prerogativeorders—Certioran—Erroroflawapparenton thefaceoftherecord— Theerror need notgo tothejurisdiction—What constitutes the *record»— Natureof remedy—Discretionary—Affidavit evidence—In general record cannotbesupplementedthereby Prerogative orders—Certioran—Ordercommitting anaccused fortnal before an Assize Court—Thejunsdiction to quash isnowestablished 5 Prerogative orders—Constitution,Article 155 4—Pnnciples applicable—Not different tothose applicable byEnglish Courts—Thepower, however, does notextenttomatterswithinthejunsdictionofArticle146oftheConstitution Construction ofStatutes—Longtitle—Anaidtoconstruction 10 CnminalProcedure—Preliminary inquiry—The Cnmmal Procedure (Temporary Provisions)Law 42/74—Section3asamendedbysection2ofLaw44/83— Purpose and effect of said Law—The necessary prerequisites for its application—Nature ofJudge sdiscretion thereunder—The discretion isnot to hold or not a prebminaryinquiry—a matterthat is entrusted to the 15 Attorney-General—but whether to commitan accused fortnal before the Assize Court withoutholdingsuch aninquiry ornotto commit him—The discretionshouldbeexercisedjudicially—CommittingJudgenotboundtogo through allthestatements ofwitnesses—Itsuffices, if hegoes through some ofthem andissatisfiedthatthereissufficientevidence tocommit ™ Criminal Procedure—Preltminaiy inquiry—Object of—The Cnmmal Procedure (Temporary Provisions) Law 42/74—Itfacilitates andshortens committal proceedings, butitdoesnottakeawaytheirbasicfunction, namelytoserve asasafeguardofthelibertyofthesubjectandoftheordealoftnalbeforean _ AssizeCourtunnecessarily Having obtained the necessaiy leave*, the applicant hied thepresent •See
(1987)lCLR23 τη 1 C.L.R. I n re Arghyrides application for an order of certioran quashing the order of the District Court ofNicosia inCriminal Case568/87,whereby he wascommittedtotrialbefore theAssizeCourt Of Nicosia 5 The contention of the applicant is that the committing Judge took her decision to commit him as aforesaid with no evidence on which to base it as a <short break· was not sufficient to read the statements of the witnesses, which had been filed in accordance with Law 42/74 Counsel for the applicantarguedthatasaresulttheJudgemisappliedthelaw inthatshefailed to exercise herjudicial power and discretiongiven to her by the said taw 10 Held, dismissing the application
(1)Certioran would issue to quash a decision of astatutory tribunal for an error of law apparent on the faceof the record, although the error does not go to thejunsdiction of the tnbunal The jurisdiction to quash the committal of a person for tnal by an Assize Court is now established, notwithstanding the statement in Halsbury's Laws of 15 England, 4th Ed , Vol II, ρ 860. para 1569 (In re Economides and Others
(1983)1C L R 933 at pp 938*939} What constitutes the «record-has been analysed by Lord Denning in R ν Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal • Exparte Shaw [1952] 1All Ε R 122 at ρ 130
(2)The long title of astatute isan aidto itsconstruction Ihe oDject of Law 42/74isobvious fromthetitleanditscontents Itsonly substantive provisions are setout insection3* asamended by s2 of Law 44/83 The EnglishLaw is ^ 25 30 35 not of any guidance in the interpretationor application of the said Law Law 42/74 renders inoperative, if certain prerequisites are fulfilled, s92 of the Cnmmal Procedure Law, Cap 155 for all offences,except those punishable by death Thus, all provisions relating to the holding of a preliminary inquiry (sections 93-1Θ5 inclusive) are also rendered inoperative The controlling words ofsection3 ofLaw 42/74 are «TheCourt haspower tocommit fortnal withoufa preliminary mquiry-any accused person» These-words do not empower the Court to hold or not a preliminary inquiry the power is to commit without a preliminary inquiry or not to commit The discretion whether such an inquiry is necessary or not was entrustedby the legislator to the Attorney-General who, under the Constitution, exercises very wide powers df quasi-judicial nature
(3)The committingJudge does not make automatically or as a matter of courseacommittalorder Committal proceedingsserve asa safeguardof the libertyofthesubjectandoftheordealofstandingtnalbeforetheAssizeCourt unnecessarily Thisfunctionofthecommittalproceedingswas nottakenaway by Law 42/74 It facilitates and shortens committal proceedings, but it does not takeaway its basic function •Quotedatρ 39 31 Inre Arghyrides 1987)
(4)The power of the committing Judge under Law 42/74 should be exercised judicially, but it is not necessary for him to go through all the statements It issufficient ifhe goesthroughsome ofthemandissatisfiedthat there is sufficient evidence to commit
(5)In thiscaseitcannotbesaid anditwas notargued-thattheJudgecould 5 not have read some or matenal statements, which would enable her to find sufficientgroundsforcommittingtheapplicant Norhas itbeensuggestedthat the statements disclose no such grounds For this reason the Court is not satisfied that she misapplied Law 42/74 or exercised her discretionin such a wrong way as to justify intervention by this Court No apparent error of law 10 appears or canbe deducedfromtherecord Application dismissed Cases referred to Lambnamdes ν Michaelides, 23 C L R 49, Attorney-General ν Chnstou, 1 9 6 2 C L R 129, Kynahdesv 15 Hiiimmdn {1963) 2 C L R 171, In re Droushiotis
(1981)1CLR708 Chnstofi and Another ν lacovidou
(1986)1C L R 236, R ν Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tnbunal •Exparte Shaw[1952] 1A11ER 122, 20 In re Economides and Others
(1983)1 C L R 933 R ν Patents Appeal Tnbunal, ex parte Baldwin and Francis Ltd (1959] Q Β D 105, Baldwin and Francis Ltd ν PatentsAppeal Tnbunal [19591 2 All Ε R 433, 25 R ν Nat Bell Uquors Ltd [192212A C 128, " Zemos ν Disciplinary Board
(1978)1C L R 382 In re Economides and Another {1983} 1C L R 925, Vacherand Sons Ltd ν London Society ofCompositors [1913]A C 107, Constantmdesv The Republic
(1978)2 C L R 337, Xenophontos ν The Republic, 2 RS C C 89, Police ν Athienihs
(1983)2 C L R 194, 32 30 1C.L.R. InreArghyride· StylianldesJ. R. v. Garden(1879J5Q.B.D. 1; Atkinsonv. U.S.A. Government[1971]A.C. 197; R. v. EppingandHarlowJustices[1973] 1 Q.B.D.433; R.v.JusticesofSurrey[1870]L.R.Q.B.D.466; 5 R. v.Stratford[1940]2K.B.33. Application. Application for an order of certiorari to bringup and quash the committal order in Criminal Case No.568/87 whereby the applicantwascommitted fortrialbefore theNicosiaAssizeCourt. 10 A. Markides with Chr. Triantafyllides, for the applicant. M. Kyprianou, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. STYLIANIDESJ. readthefollowingdecision.On26th January, 15 1987, leave was granted to the applicant to move the Court for certiorari to bring up and quash the committal order in Criminal Case No.568/87 whereby he was committed for trial before the NicosiaAssizeCourt.On the basisofthis,theapplicantmoves the Court«foranorderofcertioraritoremove intotheSupreme Court 20 for the purpose of their being quashed the ruling and/or orderof the District Court of Nicosia-relating to the committal of the applicant for trial before the Assize Court of Nicosia for the offences asshown inthe charge-sheet.» The power of thisCourt to issueprerogative ordersisset outin 25 paragraph 4 of Article 155 of the Constitution, and the principles applicable in the exercise of such jurisdiction are not different to thoseapplied bythe English courts.Itdoes not extend, however, to matters which are within the jurisdiction of Article 146 (Lambrianides v.Michaelides, 23 C.L.R. 49;Attorney-General v. 30 Christou, 1962 C.L.R. 129; Kyriakides v. Hilimindri, ^1963) 2 C.L.R. 171;Inre Droushiotis,
(1981)1C.L.R. 708; Christofiand Another v.Iacovidou,
(1986)1C.L.R. 236). Certiorariexiststocorrectanerroroflawwhererevealedon the face of an order ordecision orirregularity orabsence of or excess 33 StyUanlde·Λ. InreArghyride·
(1987)of jurisdiction where shown - (R. v. Northumberland CompensationAppealTribunal-ExparteShaw.[1952]1 AllE.R. 122). By the Northumberlandcase it was held that certiorari would issuetoquash adecision of astatutorytribunalfor errorof law on 5 the face of the record although the error did not go to the jurisdiction of thetribunal.Theressuscitation andreadaptationof certiorari intheNorthumberlandcase meansthatthesupervisory jurisdiction extends to the sphere trom which it was for considerable timethoughttohave been excluded. The errorfor 10 which certiorari lieshas tobe apparentontheface of thewritten determination oftheCourt. The jurisdiction of this Court to make an order to quash by meansof certiorarithecommittalof apersonfor trialby an Assize Court is now established notwithstanding the statement in 15 Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Ed.,Vol. 11,p.860, para.1569 -(In re EconomidesandOthers.
(1983)1C.L.R.933,atpp. 938939). Theerrorof law onwhichthismotionisbased,asset outinthe application, is that the learned District Judge committed the 20 applicant for trial in excess and/or abuse of her powers and/or without exercising her discretion and/or judicial power, as provided by Law No.42/74,asamended. Certiorariisonlyavailabletoquash adecision for erroroflawif the error appears on the face of the record. What, then,is the 25 record? Lord Denning in the Northumberland case (supra) said at p.130.«Ithasbeensaidtoconsistofallthosedocumentswhichare keptby thetribunalfor apermanentmemorialandtestimony 30 oftheirproceedings:seeBlackstone'sCommentaries,vol.Ill, p.24. But it must be noted that, whenever there was any question as towhat should, orshould not,be includedinthe record of any tribunal, the Court of King's Bench used to determineit.Itdid itinthisway. When thetribunalsenttheir 35 record totheKing's Bench inanswer tothewritofcertiorari, this return was examined, and, if it was defective or. incomplete,itwas quashed.ItappearsthattheCourtofKing's 34 1CX.B. 5 10 15 lar*Arghyrldea StyUanide» J. Benchalwaysinsistedmattherecordshouldcontain,orrecite,thedocumentorinformation whichinitiatedtheproceedings and thus gave the tribunal itsjurisdiction and also the documentwhichcontainedtheiradjudication.Thusintheold daysthe record sent up bythejusticeshad, inthe case ofa conviction,torecitetheinformationinitspreciseterms,andin the case of an order which had been decided by quarter sessionsbywayofappeal,therecordhadtosetouttheorder appealed from. The record had also to set out the adjudication, but it was never necessary to set out the reasons. Following these cases, I think the record must containatleastthedocumentwhichinitiatestheproceedings, the pleadings, if any, and the adjudication, but not the evidence, nor the reasons, unless the tribunal chooses to Incorporate them. Ifthe tribunal does state its reasons, and those reasons are wrong in law, certiorari lies toquash the decision.» (See, also,R. v.PatentsAppeal Tribunal, ex-parte Baldwin & FrancisLtd., [1959] 1 Q.B.D. 105,andBaldwin&FrancisLtd. v. 20 PatentsAppealTribunal, (1959]2AllE.R.433). There isno quarrel what constitutes the record inthe present case. TherecordInthiscaseconsistsofthecharge-sheetinCriminal CaseNo.568/87filedintheDistrictCourtofNicosia,therecordof 25 the District Judge and two exhibits, i.e. the consent of the Attomey^Generalandacopyofthestatementsofwitnesses. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned District Judgehad,Inapplication ofLawNo.42/74,toexerciseadouble discretion: (a)whether to proceed with or withouta preliminary 30 inquiry; a/id (b) if she decided to dispense with a preliminary inquiry,thentoexerciseherdiscretionwhethertocommitornot, andthisdiscretionshouldbeexercisedifthestatementsdisclosed sufficient groundsforsuchcommittalfortrial. Itisthecontentionofcounselfortheapplicantthatthelearned 35 DistrictJudgemisappliedtheLawinthatshefailedtoexerciseher judicial power and discretion given to her by Law No.42/74 in decidingwhethertocommittheapplicantwithorwithoutholding afullpreliminaryinquiry.Shehastakenthedecisiontocommitthe applicantfortrialwithnoevidenceonwhichtobaseitasashort 35 StyllanidesJ. InreArghyrides
(1987)break was not sufficient toreadthe statements. It was not argued thatthestatementsdonotrevealsufficient groundsforcommittal. The record of the Judge of 10th January, 1987, reads as follows:«Δικαστήριο: Απαγγέλλονται οι κατηγορίες που αντιμετωπίζουν οι κατηγορούμενοι σύμφωνα με το παρόν κατηγορητήριο, σε απλή και καταληπτή από αυτούς γλώσσα. Οι ίδιοι δηλώνουν ότι αντελήφθησαν και κατενόησαν τιςκατηγορίεςπου αντιμετωπίζουν. 5 Κατηγορούσα Αρχή: Παρουσιάζω έγγραφο 10 συγκατάθεση της Εντίμου Γενικού Εισαγγελέως της Δημοκρατίας, περί μη αναγκαιότητας διεξαγωγής προανακρίσεως στηντταρούσα υπόθεση. Δικαστήριο: Η έγγραφος συγκατάθεση της Γενικού Εισαγγελέως σημειούται ωςΤεκμ. Α. 15 Κατηγορούσα Αρχή: Παρουσιάζω επίσης αντίγραφο του συνόλου της μαρτυρίας, αντίγραφο της οποίας παρέδωσα σήμερα στους κατηγορούμενους/οτο δικηγόρο των κατηγορούμενων. Δικαστήριο: Το σύνολο της μαρτυρίαςσημειούται ως 20 Τεκμ. Β. Συνηγ.: Βεβαιώνομεν ότι ελάβαμεν σήμερα αντίγραφο του συνόλου της μαρτυρίας, ως το Τεκμ. Β. Συνηγ.: Δεν επιθυμούμεν σε αυτό το στάδιο να αναφέρομεν οτιδήποτε. Επιφυλάσσομε την 25 υπεράσπιση μας. (Μετά από σύντομη διακοπή, επαναρχίζει η διαδικασία - Εμφανίσεις είναι όπως και προηγου μένως). Δικαστήριο: Είμαι ικανοποιημένη ότι έχουν τηρηθεί 30 οι Πρόνοιες του Άρθρου 3 του Νόμου 42/74. Είμαι επίσης ικανοποιημένη ότι στο Τεκμήριο Β περιέχεται επαρκής μαρτυρία η οποία δικαιολογεί την παραπομπή των κατηγορουμένων σεδίκη ενώπιον του Κακουργιοδικείου, χωρίς να είναι ανάγκη να διεξαχθεί 35 προηγουμένως προανάκριση. 36 1C.L.R. InreArghyridee StylianidesJ. Οι κατηγορούμενοι παραπέμπονταισεδίκη ενώπιον του ΚακουργιοδικείουΛευκωσίας,τοοποίοσυνέρχεται σεΣυνεδρίατην 12η Ιανουαρίου,1987». 5 10 («Court: The charges faced by the accused are read in simple language, which they can understand. The accused statethattheyunderstoodthecharges which they face. Officerfortheprosecution:\producethewrittenconsentof the Honourable Attorney-General of the Republic to the effect that in this case it is not necessary to carry out a preliminary inquiry. Court:The written consent of the Attorney-General is markedExhibitA. 15 Officer fortheprosecution: Ialso produce copy of all the evidence. I have given copy thereof to the accused/their advocates. Court:Theevidence ismarked ExhibitB. Counselfortheaccused:Weconfirm thatwehave received to-daycopy ofthewhole evidence asperExhibitB. 20 Counselfortheaccused:Atthisstagewedonotwishtosay anything.We reserveour defence. {Afterashortbreak theproceedings are resumed - Appearances as before). 25 _ Court:Iamsatisfied thattheprovisions ofsection3of Law 42/74 have been complied "with. I~amTalso~satisfied that- ExhibitΒcontainssufficient evidence,justifyingthecommittal of theaccused totrialbefore theAssizeCourt,withoutDeing necessary tocarry outbeforehand apreliminary inquiry. Theaccused arecommittedtotrialbefore theAssizeCourt of Nicosia,sitting onthe 12.1.87»). *' Intheaffidavit insupport of theapplication for leave, which is adopted in the affidavit in support of the present motion and is actually made an exhibit thereto, itisstated thatthehonourable Judge interruptedtheproceedings for a short period of time that was notmorethan 15to20minutes.Thispartoftheaffidavit isnot 35 admissible for thesimple reasonthattheerrormustappearonthe record and the record cannot be in general supplemented by 37 StyllanJdeaJ. InreArghyrldcs
(1987)affidavit evidence -(R. v.NatBellLiquors Ltd., [1922] 2A.C. 128, per Lord Sumner, at p.159; Baldwin & FrancisLtd. v. Patents Appeal Tribunal and Others, [1959] 2 All E.R. 433, per Lord Tucker, at p.443). This affidavit was not put by consent and this part of the affidavit will be disregarded for the purposes of these proceedings. 5 Learned counsel for the respondentssubmitted thattheDistrict Court under Law No.42/74 has no power to decide whether to hold a preliminary inquiry or not; if the requirements prescribed by the said Law are satisfied, ithas power to committhe accused 10 for trial unless there is no sufficient evidence. Igranted leave without at that stage being necessary to decide on the validity of the contentionsof counsel, the functions of the committingCourtunderSection 3 of Law No. 42/74 andwhether the alleged miscompliance occurred, and this in accordance with 15 previous authority-(Zenios v. DisciplinaryBoard,
(1978)1C.L.R. 382,387; Inre Economides and Another,
(1983)1 C.L.R.925, at p.928). Thefirst question thatarises for determinationisthefunctions of the committing Court. The Criminal Procedure Law, Cap.155, 20 s.92, provides thata preliminary inquiry shall be held by a Judge inaccordancewith theprovisions inSections93 to 105 (inclusive) whenever any charge has been brought against any person of an offence nottriable summarily oras towhichtheCourtisof opinion that itis notsuitable tobe disposed of by summary trial. 25 In 1974 The Criminal Procedure (Temporary Provisions) Law, 1974 (No.42of 1974) was enacted.Thelong titleof aStatuteisan aid toconstruction(Vacher &Sons, Limited v.London Society of Compositors, [1913]A.C, 107, atpp. 128-129). The long title of Law No.42of 1974 reads:- 30 «Lawproviding for certainmeasures for «διευκόλυνση/και ταχυτέραν απονομήν της δικαιοσύνης» (facility and speedier administration ofjustice) incriminalcases duringthe emergency created in consequence of theTurkish invasion.» The object of the Law is obvious from thetitle and its contents. 35 Itsonlysubstantive provisions areset outins.3,asamendedby s.2 of Law No.44/83, which reads as follows:- 38 1C.L.R. 5 10 " ΙηκΑι-ghyridea StylianidesJ. «
- Διαρκούσης της ισχύος τ ο υ περί Δικαστηρίων (Προσωρινοί Διατάξεις) Νόμου τ ο υ 1974και π ά ρ α τ α ς διατάξεις τ ο υ άρθρου 92τ ο υ περί ΠοινικήςΔικονομίας Νόμου εις περιπτώσεις αδικημάτων προβλεπομένων υπό τ ο υ Ποινικού Κωδικός ή οιουδήποτε ετέρου εν ισχυϊ Νόμου, εξαιρουμένων αδικημάτων τιμωρουμένων διατ η ςποινής τ ο υ θ α ν ά τ ο υ , εάν(α) ο ΓενικόςΕισαγγελεύςτηςΔημοκρατίας παράσχη γραπτήν σ υ γ κ α τ ά θ ε σ ε περί της μη αναγκαιότητος διεξαγωγής τοιαύτης προανακρίσεως' και (β) αντίγραφον της καταθέσεως εκάστου μάρτυρος κατηγορίας τον οποίον προτίθεται να καλέση η κατηγορούσα Αρχή, επιδοθή προηγουμένωςεις τον κατήγορουμενόν ήτον δικηγόρον α υ τ ο ύ , τ ο Δικαστήριον κέκτηται εξουσίαν να π α ο α π έ μ ψ η εις δίκην άνευ προανακρίσεως οιονδήποτε κατηγορούμενον.» 20 («
- Duringthecontinuanceinforce oftheCourtsofJustice (Temporary Provisions) Law, 1974, and notwithstanding the provisions of section 92 of the Criminal Procedure Law, in casesof offences created by theCriminalCode oranyother Law inforce, with theexception of offences punishable with thedeathpenalty, if- 25 - - -(a) theAttorney-General of the Republic giveshiswritten consent tothe effect thatitisnotnecessary toholda preliminary inquiry;and 30 (b) copyofthestatementofeachprosecutionwitness,whom theprosecution intendstocall,isservedinadvanceon theaccusedorhisadvocate, theCourthaspower tocommitfor trialwithouta preliminary inquiry anyaccusedperson»). The provisions of this Law were to some extent judicially considered in Constanfcrnides v. The Republic,
(1978)2 C.L.R. 35 337,andInreEconomidesandOthers,
(1983)1C.L.R.933). Though the notion of committing without preliminary inquiry was embodied as early as 1967 in the Criminal Justice Act in 39 StylianidesJ. Inre Arghyrldes
(1987)England, after comparison oftheprovisionsotthetwoLaws,Iam of theviewthat the Cypriotlegislatordidnotfollow inany respect the English Law. The English Law is not of any guidance in the interpretation orapplicationofourLaw,neitheristheMagistrates' Act, 1980. 5 The opening paragraph of Section 3 lays down that the operation of this Law and the exercise of the power given to a Court tocommitwithoutpreliminaryinquiryexistsonlyduringthe continuance in "force of The Courts of Justice (Temporary Provisions) Law, 1974 (No.43 of 1974). Itrenders inoperative, if 10 certain prerequisites are fulfilled, the provisions of s.92 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap.155, for all offences except those punishable by death. Thus, it renders also inoperative all the provisions regarding the holding of a preliminary inquiry which are setout in Sections 93-105,inclusive. 15 Thetwoprerequisitesthathave tobesatisfied are:(a)Written consent oftheAttorney-General totheeffect thatit isnot necessary to hold a preliminary inquiry; and, (b)The service in advance on the accused or hisadvocate of copy of the statement of each witness for the prosecution whom the prosecution intendsto call. 20 The controlling wordsofthesection are:«TheCourt has power to commit for trial without a preliminary inquiry any accused person.» These words do not empower the Court to exercise discretion whethertohold ornota preliminaryinquiry;thepower 25 isto commit without a preliminary inquiry or not tocommit. The discretion whether a preliminary inquiry is necessary or not, whether the provisions of s.92 of Cap.155should be followed or the provisions of this Law should be applied, were entrusted by the legislator to the Attorney-General of the Republic whose 30 written consent mat the holding of a preliminary inquiry is not necessary, was made a prerequisite for the exercise of the power giventotheCourtbythissection.TheAttorney-General underthe Constitution exercisesverywidepowers of quasi-judicial nature (Article 113of theConstitution -Xenophontos v. TheRepublic, 2 35 R.S.C.C. 89;Police v.Athienitis,
(1983)2 C.L.R. 194). The committing Judge does not make automatically or as a matter of course a committal order.The object ofthe necessityof 40 1C.L.R. InreAranyrlde· StylianldesJ. a case going through committal proceedings before trial by the AssizeCourtisasafeguard foracitizentoensurethathecannot be made to stand his trial without sufficient grounds. Itserved as a safeguard ofthelibertyofthesubjectand ofthe ordealof standing 5 atrialbefore theAssizeCourtunnecessarily -(R.v.Carden, [1879] 5 Q.B.D. 1;Atkinson v. U.S.A. Government, [1971]A.C. 197; R. v.Epping& HarlowJustices, [1973] 1Q.B.D. 433). Thisfunction ofthe committalproceedings wasnottaken away by Law No. 42/74. It facilitated and shortened committal 10 proceedings but itdid not take away itsbasic function. In the English Act in certain cases the committing magistrate «shallcommit»;under our Lawhe isvested withpower to commit without preliminary inquiry. Such power should be exercised judicially.Hehastosatisfy himselfthattherearesufficient grounds 15 forapersontostandhistrial.The objectoftheprovisiontodeliver copies of the statements of the witnesses whom the prosecution intends to call at the trial istwofold: (a) to enable the commiting Judge to exercise his discretion; and (b)to inform the accused of the case that he isdue to face. 20 This being said, Ido not find that it is necessary for a District Judge to go through all the statements in order to exercise such power. Itsuffices ifhe goesthrough some ofthestatementsand is satisfied thatthere issufficient evidence to commit. It is upon an applicant who moves the Court for certiorari to . . . 25_ satisfy theCourt that there isan error of lawmanifest on the face of the record. Before concluding, Iwould like to observe that certiorari is a discretionary remedy. It is not given in futile. As was said in the case of Christofiv. Iacovidou (supra), «certiorari is not a writ of 30 course, yet where the application is by the party aggrieved, it ought to be treated as ex debitojustitiae» - (Reginav.Justices of Surrey, [1870]L.R.Q.B.D.466;R. v.Stratford,[1940]2K.B.33). Itwas argued that the learned District Judge could not have readallthestatementswithintheshortperiodthatshewithdrewto 35 her chambers. Itcannot be said, however, validly-and itwas not argued -thatshecouldnothavereadsome ormaterial statements whichwouldenablehertofindthattherearesufficient groundsfor committing the accused. Nor has it been suggested that the 41 StylUnlde·J. InreArghyride·
(1987)statementsdisclosenosuchgrounds. For this reason Iam not satisfied that the committing Judge misapplied Law No.42/74 or exercised her discretion in such a wrongwayastojustify myintervention.Noapparenteaoroflaw appearsorcanbededuced from therecord. 5 Iwould like to place on record that committing Judges must adherestrictlytotheLaw.Theyhavetokeepa«speaking»record; and itwouldbeadvisable,thoughtheyarenotboundtodoso,to gothroughthestatementsofthewitnessesintheirentirety before theyexercise theirpower unders.3ofLawNo.42/74,afactthat 10 shouldbereflected ontherecord. Fortheaforesaid reasonsIwouldrefuse theapplication. Applicationdismissed.Lettherebenoorderastocosts. Applicationdismissed withnoorderastocosts. 15 42