2 C.L.R. 1987July 14 [A'LOIZOU,DEMETRIADES,STYL1ANIDES, JJ.] ANDREAS CHRISTOU KTIMATIAS ALIAS PATSIKAS, Appellant, v. T H E POLICE, Respondents. (Criminal Appeal No. 4886). Appeal — Bail — Interference bythis Court with the exercise of a committing or trialJudge's discretion asto bail — Principles applicable. 5 The trialJudge committedunder the provisions of Law 42/74 theaccused for tnal before the Assize Court, but refused bail on account of the seriousness of the offences (Possessing two firearms and49 rounds of ammunition), the punishment prescribed by law (15 and 10 yean respectively),thenature andcontentsoftheevidence andthe«absenceofany other exceptional circumstances». Hence the present appeal directedagainst the refusal to grantbail. 10 Held, dismissing the appeal:
(1)This Court does not interfere with the discretion in matters relating to bail ofa commiting or atrial Judge, unless persuaded that such aJudge actedon awrong principle or failedtotake into considerationwhatheoughttohavetakenortookintoconsiderationmatters, which he should not have taken. 15
(2)There isnoreason to interfere with the exercise of the committing Judge's discretion in this case. Appeal dismissed. Casesreferredto: Attorney-General ν Mehmet
(1966)2 C.L.R 12. 20 Appeal againstremand order. Appeal byAndreas Christou KtimatiasaliasPatsikasagainstthe order of the District Court of Nicosia (Papadopoulou (Mrs.)Ag. D.J.) made on the 3rd July, 1987 whereby appellant was remanded in Policecustody untilthe 21st September, 1987, when 25 his trialwould begin. 109 KHmatiasv. Police
(1987)A Effychiou, for the appellant A Μ Angehdes, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent A LOIZOUJ gave the following judgment of the Court The appellant was on the3rd July 1987, committed for tnalbefore the 5 Assize Court sitting inNicosia on the 21st September 1987, by a Judge of the District Court of Nicosia,acting under the provisions of section 3 of the Cnminal Procedure (Temporary Provisions) Law 1974, (Law No 42 of 1974), without holding a preliminary inquiry Copy of thestatements and otherexhibits were handed over to him and upon the application of the prosecuting officer and after heanng counsel appeanng for the appellant, the learned tnal Judge refused bail and remanded him in custody until his tnal Inthe exercise of herdiscretion the learned tnalJudge took into 15 consideration the senousness of the offences with which the appellant was charged,thepunishmentprescnbed by Law andthe nature of the contents of the evidence which was placed before herand onthebasisofwhich theappellant was committedfor tnal and as she added «in the absence of any other exceptional 20 circumstances» She relied on the legal pnnciples expounded in the case of the Attorney-General of the Republic ν Yousouf Yousouf Mehmet,
(1966)2 C L R 12 and on thestatement of the Law made, by reference to the authonties, in the textbook of Cnminal Procedure in Cyprus by A Ν Loizou and G Pikis, pp 25 34-37 The appellant was charged with three counts,the first two were for possessingtwo firearms, the importationof which is prohibited by Law, contrary to sections 2, 3(l)(a)(b)(c), 2(b), and 28 of the Firearms Law 1974 (Law No 38 of 1974), as amended by Law 30 No 27/78, and the third one for possession of 49 rounds of ammunition of 303 and 45 rounds of ammunition of 9 m m, contrarytosections 2 and4
(1)
(3),4(d)and5(a)(b),of theExplosive Substances Law, Cap 54, as amended by Law No 27 of 1978 The sentence provided by Law in respect of which offences contained in the first two counts is one of 15 years impnsonment and for the third count ten years impnsonment We do not consider itproper to comment on the nature of the 110 35 10 2 C.L.R. Ktimatias v.Police A.Loizou J. evidence against the appellant as the learned committing Judge had the opportunity of goingthrough itand form an opinion asto the extent ofthe implication of the appellant. Asithasbeen repeatedly stated,thisCourtsittingonappealwill 5 only interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion in matters relating to bail by a committing Judge or a trial Judge if it is persuaded thatsuch aJudge actedonawrongprincipleofLawor failed totakeintoconsideration whatheoughttohavetaken orhe took intoconsideration matterswhich he should not have taken. 10 In the present case we find no reason to interfere with the exercise ofthe committingJudge'sdiscretion asshe relied on the proper principlesofLaw.Theseverityofthepunishment provided by Lawand the extent of the implication ofthe appellant, aswell asthe likelihood ofthesentence tobeimposed,are-most material 15 considerations indeciding for oragainst theremand incustodyof a person committed for trial by the Assize Court. Needless to say that in cases of serious ot.cnces such as for example cases involvingfirearms subversion trafficking ofnarcoticsetcetera,bail should in general be granted only if exceptional circumstances 20 justify such a course. Forallthe above reasonsthisappeal isdismissed. Appeal dismissed. Ill