(1987)1987April 14 (TRIANTAFYLLIDES, Ρ , LORIS,STYLIANIDES,JJ.J CHRISTAKIS MICHAELIDES, Appellant, v. THE REPUBLIC, Respondent. (Application inCriminalAppealNo. 4764). Appeal — Practice— Reopening of hearingafterjudgment has been reserved — Therelevantinherent power of the Court. Byletterdated26.3.87oneofthemainprosecutionwitnesses informedthe Attorney-General thathe was notatall sure thatthemanwhom hehad seen at the place where the body of the victim was burntduring the night of 24 5 March 1986 was the appellant. As a result counsel for the respondent asked for the reopening of the hearingof thiscase. Held, that in the circumstances of this case this Court will exercise its inherentpower and orderthereopening of thehearing of thisappeal. 10 Orderaccordingly. Casesreferredto. Koliandnsv TheRepublic
(1965)2 C.L.R.
- Application. Application by Counselfor therespondentfor thereopening of thehearing of thiscase after judgment had been reserved. 15 Chr. Pourgouhdes withG. Tsikkos,for theappellant. R. Gavtietides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 20 TWANTAFYLUDES P. read the following decision of the Court.We reservedjudgmentin thiscase on3 April 1987 after a lengthyhearing. 266 2 C.L.R. Onlslforou v.Police Triantafyllide» P. On 6 April 1987 counsel appearing for the respondent requested in writing the reopening of the hearing because of a letter which was addressed to the Attorney-General of the Republic,on26March 1987,byDemetrisPalaris,whowasoneof 5 the main prosecution witnessesatthetrialofthe appellant. Such letter was received by the Attorney-General on 4 Apnl 1987 and bymeans of itthe said witnessstated thathe wasnot at all sure that the man whom he had seen at the place where the body of the victim was burnt during the night of 24 March 1986 10 wasthe appellant. Asa result of thislettercounsel for the respondent, acting very properly indeed, gave instructions for the Police to take a statement from witness Palaris and he gave such statement on 4 April
- 15 Then, by his written communication to the Court on 6 April 1987 counsel for the respondent asked for the reopening of the hearing ofthiscase. Today we have heard both counsel regarding the power of the Court to reopen the hearing of a criminal appeal after judgment 20 hasbeen reserved. No authority was cited to usbut we have been referred to the inherent powers of the Court which are to be exercised in the interests ofjustice. We have ourselves traced the case of Kohandns v. The 25 Republic,
(1965)2C.L.R.72,inwhich,asitappearsfromitsreport (atp.80)theSupreme Court,onitsowninitiative,decidedtohear further evidence,undersection25
(3)oftheCourtsofJusticeLaw, 1960(Law 14/60),byrecallingan expertwitness. Itdoesnotappearclearlyfrom the reportoftheKoliandriscase 30 whether the hearing was reopened after judgment had been reserved, but from the file of the case,which we havetraced, itis obvious that after the hearing took placp on 15 June 1965, judgment wasreserved and the hearingwasreopened for further evidence on 17June 1965;andjudgmentwasfinallygivenon 22 35 June 1965.There does, therefore, seem to exist a precedent for the reopening of the hearing of a criminal appeal after judgment hasbeen reserved. 267 Triantafyllldes P. Onlsiforou v.Police
(1987)Wehave decided, inthelightofthematerialbefore usandinthe interestsofjustice,toexerciseourinherentpowersandreopen the hearing of thisappeal and we shall, first, hear counsel as to what course we should take inview of the developments which led to the reopening of the hearing. 5 Ifeithercounselwishestorecallanywitnessortocallany further evidence an application should befiled byhiminthe usualcourse under section 25 of Law 14/60, for leave enabling him todo so. Atthismomentwearenotdecidingwhetherornotwearegoing togrant such leave. Orderaccordingly. 268 '-0