(1987)1986 November 17 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES Ρ DEMETRIADES SAVVIDES JJ ANDREASNICOLAOU. Appellant, υ THEREPUBLIC, Respondent (Criminal Application No 1/86) Appeal — Cnminal appeal — Time within which to file notice of appeal — Extension of—Failure of pnson authonties to transmit to Supreme Court a nohce of appealsignedwithin time— Extensionof timejustified The applicant signed within timea noticeof appeal against hisconviction, but by inadvertence,thepnson authontiesdid nottransmitittotheSupreme Court 5 Hence this application for an extension of time within which to file the notice of appeal Held, granting the application, that in this case a good cause has been shown in favour of extending thetimewithin which theappellant istofile his 10 appeal Orderextending the time within whichto fileanappeal for apenod of 7days asfrom to-day 15 Cases refened to Michaelidouv DistnctOfficerLamaca,
(1984)2CLR 1 Application. Application for the extension of thetime within which tofilean appeal against conviction. Ε Liatsou (Mrs.), for theapplicant·. 238 20 2 C.L.R. Nicolaou v. Republic Α. Μ Angelides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 5 TRIANTAFYLL1DES P.: read the following judgment of the Court. The appellant was convicted on 17 June 1986 of the offence of incest with his daughter and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. After he was taken to the Central Prisons he signed a noticeof appeal against his conviction within the ten days' period 10 envisaged by section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Cap. 155,andhandedittoanofficer having charge of him atthe Central Prisons for transmission totheSupreme Court. As the appellantthoughtthattherewas delay infixinghisappeal for hearing he communicated with his lawyer, Mr. A. Andreou. 15 who eventually discovered that the notice of appeal which was signed by theappellant never reached the Supreme Court, butit was inadvertently placed by theprison authoritiesinthe personal file of theappellant attheCentral Prisons andwas left there. As a result there was filed on 21 October 1986 the present 20 application seeking an extension of the time within which the appellant willfile his appeal against conviction. Counsel appearing today for the respondent has informed the Courtthatthe version of the appellantas tohow itcameaboutthat hisappeal was nottransmittedtotheSupremeCourtiscorrectand 25 thathedoesnotobject toanextension of the timewithinwhichthe appellantwill appeal. As hasbeen correctly pointedoutinMichaelidou v. TheDistrict Officer, Lamaca,
(1984)2 C.L.R. 1, the extension of the time for appeal isamatterof discretion andtherelevant powers, which are 30 granted to the Supreme Court by virtue of section 134 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155, have to be exercised in the interests of justice. Inthepresentinstancewe aresatisfied thatgood causehasbeen shown infavour of extending thetimewithin which theappellant 35 istoappeal againsthisconvictionandwe,hereby,extendthetime within which he may appeal for seven daysas from today. Application granted 239