(1987)1987 July 24 (A LOIZOU, DEMETRIADES, STYLIANIDES. JJ ] 1 MICHAUSANTON1AEROPOROS, 2 ANDROS ANTON1AEROPOROS, Appellants, ν " H E POLICE, Respondents. • nmmal Appeals Nos. 4888, 4889). Remand in custody pending inve^ug,t:ii>n into the commission of an offence — Reasonablesuspicionthataf-eiwn uascommittedanoffence —A condition sinequa non for the validityol the order— Thetermtreasonablesuspicion* cannot be extended to mean the a-, m^ion of anoffence —Judge should balancepublicinterestinthedst •.; .ιo· •,ime withaperson sconstitutional 5 nght to hisliberty. Appeal— Remand incustodypending investigationintocommissionof an offence — Approach andpowers ofAppellate Court— Pnnciplesapplicable These appeals are directed against the order of a Judge, remanding the appellants in police custody for eight days, pending investigation into the commission of premedidated murderandconspiracy tocommitmurder 10 This was the second application for remand. For the same case another person was arrestedwho gaveas'atementtothepoliceinwhich he confessed the commission of theoffences, ίne two appellants and anothersuspect are brothersandthey carry outthesame occupation.Theyliveinthesame room 15 The fatal bomb used for the commission of the murders was made in the house of thesuspects by theself-confessed suspe* ttiafkam andtheirbrother Inthenotesof Kafkans thetelephoneof thehouse of theappellantsandtheir brother was found. Kafkans metthethreebrothersattheir house Furthermore there was evidence before the first instance Judge that both appellants, 15days priortothecommission of thecnmesunder investigation, committed unlawful actsand acts of threatening in order to benefit theselfconfessed suspect Kafkans. Held, dismissing the appeals
(1)The matter isgoverned by paras. 2(c), 5 232 20 2 C.L.R. Aeroporos & Another v. Pol andoofArt l l ' o f t h e Constitution, Art 5{3)oftheEuropean Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Section 24**ofthe Cnminal Procedure Law, Cap 155 5 10 15
(2)The tnalJudgehastodeterminewhetherthereisareasonable suspicion that a person has committed an offence permitting the detention of such person, regard being had to the circumstances of the case as they appear at the matenal time It isclear that thepersistence of suchsuspicion isaconditionsine qua non for the validity of the continued detention of the person concerned The notion of«reasonablesuspicion-couldnotbeextendedtomean commission of theoffence
(3)ThisCourt does notsubstitute itsdiscretionforthat 6f the tnalJudge The evaluation of facts is a matter within the exclusive domain of the tnal Judge The task ofthisCourt isonly todeterminewhether ornotthe decision was reasonable and thereforejustified
(4)Inthiscasethereexistedreasonable suspicion Thegroundsgiven bythe Judge for his decision, though very bnef, are satisfactory, it would be advisable that reasons should be given at more length 20
(5)Inanapplicationforremandorder,thefirstquestiontobeconsideredby the Judge is whether, balancing public interest in the detection of cnme as presented to him at the time, against a person's constitutional nght to his liberty, the Judge finds sufficient justification for the making of a remand order Appeals dismissed 25 Cases referredto VedatAhmet Hasipv The Police, 1 9 6 4 C L R 64, Vassiliou ν ThePolice, 1964C L R 89. Drymousis ν The Police, 1964 C L R 92, Tsmdesv ThePolice
(1973)2 C L R 204, 30 Papacleovoulou andAnother ν ThePolice
(1974)2 C L R 55, StamatansandAnother ν ThePolice
(1983)2C L R 107 Appealagainstremand order. Appeal by MichalisAeroporosandAnotheragainsttheorderof a Judge of the DistnctCourt of Limassol (Fr.Nicolaides, S.D J) 'Quotedatpp 234-235post "Quoted atρ 235post 233 Aeroporos & Another v. Police
(1987)madeon the 20thJuly, 1987wherebyappellantswere remanded in custody for eight days in relation to the investigation into the commission by them of the offence of premeditated murder or conspiracy to commita murder. Chr.Pourgourides, for theappellants. CI.HjiPetrou, for the respondents. A. LOIZOU J.: The judgment of the Court willbe delivered by Mr.Justice Stylianides. STYLIANIDES J.:Theseappealsare directed againstthe order ofaJudge oftheDistrictCourtofLimassol,dated20thJuly, 1987, 10 remandingthe appellants inpolicecustodyfor eight days. The complaint of the appellants isthat the remand orders were the result of a wrong exercise of the discretionary powers of the Judge who issued them. Thiswasthesecond application forremand astheinvestigation 15 intothecommission oftheoffences, namelypremeditated murder and conspiracy to commitamurder, for whichtheappellants had been arrested, had not been completed. Thematterisgoverned bys.24 oftheCriminalProcedure Law, Cap. 155, which survived in virtue of Article 188 of the 20 Constitution and paras. 2(c), 5 and 6 of Article 11 of the Constitution. Paragraph 5 partlyreproducestheprovisionsofArticle5, para. 3 oftheEuropean Convention fortheProtectionofHuman Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which, having been ratified by Law 25 39/62, ispart ofthe legal order of thiscountry. Paragraphs2(c),5and6ofArticle11oftheConstitution read as follows:«2(c) the arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose ofbringinghimbefore thecompetent legalauthority 30 on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committingan offences orfleeing after having done so.
- The person arrested shall,assoon as ispracticable after his arrest, and in any event not later than twenty-four hours 35 after the arrest, be brought before a judge, if not earlier released. 234 5 2 C.L.R. 5 10 Aeroporos & Another v.Police Stylianides J . 6 The judge before whom the person arrested is brought shall promptly proceed to inquire into the grounds of the arrest in a language understandable by the person arrested and shall, assoon aspossible and inany event not later than three days from such appearance, either release the person arrested on such terms as he may deem fit or where the investigation intothe commission of the offence forwhich he has been arrested has not been completed remand him in custodyand mayremand himincustody from timetotimefor a period notexceedingeightdaysatanyonetime: Provided that the total period of such remand in custody shallnot exceed three monthsofthe dateof thearreston the expiration of which every person or authority having the custody ofthe person arrested shall forthwith sethim free 15 Any decision of the judge under this paragraph shall be subject toappeal». Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Law, 155reads:- 20 25 «
- Where itshall be made to appear to aJudge that the investigation into the commission of an offence for which a person hasbeen arrested hasnotbeen completed, itshall be lawful fortheJudge, whetherornothehasjurisdictiontodeal with the offence for which the investigation is made, upon application made byapolice officer, notbelowtherank ofan Inspector, to remand, from to time, such arrested person in the custody of the police for such time not exceeding eight days at any one time as the Court shall think fit, the day following the remand being counted asthe first day.» These Constitutional and statutory provisions were considered bythisCourt ina number of cases, including VedatAhmet Hasip 30 v. The Police, 1964 C.L.R. 64;Kyriakos Vassiliou v. ThePolice, 1964 C.L.R. 89; Costas Demetriou Drymousis v. The Police. 1964 C.L.R. 92; Costas Tsiridesv. The Police
(1973)2 C.L R. 204;Papacleovoulou andAnother v. ThePolice
(1974)2 C.L.R. 55; StamatarisandAnother v.ThePolice
(1983)2C.L.R. 107. 35 Thefirst instanceJudge, ontheevidence produced before him by the police, has to exercise his own discretion in order to determine whether there isa reasonable suspicion that a person hascommittedanoffence permittingthedetention ofsuch person, 235 StyUanldes J. Aeroporos &Another v.Police
(1987)regardbeinghadtothecircumstancesofthecaseastheyappear atthematerialtime. Itisclearthat the persistence of such suspicion isa condition sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention of the person concerned. The notion of «reasonable suspicion» could 5 notbeextendedtomeancommissionoftheoffence, asitwould beillogicaltorequireforthepurposeofremandproceedingsthat the offence was finally defined and proved, since that is the purpose of the investigation, and trial to ensure the normal conductofwhichistheveryreasonwhythedetentiononremand 10 isnecessary.Reasonablesuspicionmeansthattherewerereasons tosuspect. The object of the constitutional provision and Article5 of the Conventionistoensurethatnooneshouldbedispossessedofhis libertyinanarbitraryfashion. TheJudgehadtoexamineonlywhetherthereexistedgrounds forreasonablesuspicion. The approach of this Court in these cases is to determine whethertheexercise ofdiscretionarypowersingrantinganorder for remand incustody wasexercisedjudiciallyon the particular 20 case.Thetask of thisCourtisonlytodetermine whether ornot these decisions were reasonable and therefore justified. Weare not required on appeal to evaluate the facts relevant to the exerciseoftheJudge'sdiscretion,afunction exclusivelywithinthe domain oftheJudge determiningthe issueofthe remand order 25 andwearenotsubstitutingourdiscretionforthatofthetrialJudge. The offences under investigation in the present cases were treble premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Theyareoffences oftheutmostgravity. Learned counselfor theappellantssubmitted thatthematerial 30 placed before the Judge was notsufficient tojustify reasonable suspicion. Having taken into consideration the material on the record, whichtheJudgehadbeforehim,weareoftheviewthathecould reasonablyand justifiably, intheexerciseofhisdiscretion,reach 35 the conclusion that ill. c existed reasonable suspicion and his discretion "·. ^;'p-t'.v " .»lirially. 236 2CXJB. Aervporao&Aaothexv.PoHce Stytiankfe· J. Without repeating the whole evidence, suffices to say that, according to the record, this was the second application for remand. Forthesamecaseanotherpersonwasarrested whogave astatementtothepoliceinwhichheconfessedthecommissionof 5 theoffences. Thetwoappellantsandanothersuspectare brothers and they carry out the same occupation. They live in the same room.Thefatalbombusedforthecommissionofthemurderswas made in the house of the suspects by the self-confessed suspect Kafkarisandtheirbrother.InthenotesofKafkaristhetelephoneof 10 the house of the appellantsand theirbrotherwasfound. Kafkaris metthethreebrothersattheirhouse. Furthermore therewasevidence before the firstinstance Judge thatboth appellants 15dayspriortothecommission ofthecrimes under investigation committed unlawful acts and acts of 15 threateninginordertobenefittheself-confessed suspect Kafkaris. The grounds given by the Judge for hisdecision, though very brief,aresatisfactory;itwouldbeadvisablethatreasonsshouldbe givenatmore length. It should be bom further in mind that in an application for 20 remand order, the firstquestion tobeconsidered bytheJudgeis whether, balancing public interest in the detection of crime as presented tohimatthetime,againstaperson'sconstitutionalright tohisliberty,theJudge finds sufficient justification forthe making of a remand order. (Per Kyriakos Vassiliou v. The Police (supra) 25 and StamatarisandAnother v. ThePolice(supra).) Intheresulttheseappealsagainstasecondremand orderofthe appellantsarehereby dismissed. Appeals dismissed. 237