(1987)1987February27 [TKIANTAFYLLIDES Ρ LORISANDSTYLIAN1DES JJ ] C H R I S T O D O U L O S M I C H A E L A N D OTHERS, Applicants, ν T H E POLICE Respondent (Criminal Applications No 3-27/86) Cnmmal Procedure—Appeal—Extension oftimewithin which tolodge it—Powers of Court—*Good cause»—What constitutes a 'good cause* depends on the circumstances of each case—Section 134 of the Cnmmal Procedure Law, Cap 155 Cnmmal Procedure—Summary tnal—Failure ofaccusedtoappear at—Discretion of tnal Court in cases, where the appearance hasnot been dispensed with under s 45
(1)of theCnmmal Procedure Law, Cap 155—Section 89
(1)ofthe said Law—The Court may either proceed and detennine the case in the absenceof theaccusedoradjourn the tnaland issuea wan-antforhis arrest— Pnnciples governing theexercise ofsuchdiscretion I The applicants pray that the time within which to lodge an appeal against their conviction for using a public earner contrary to the conditions of its transport licence in force be extended The applications are based on section 134 of Cap 155 The applicants alleged that they did not appear beforethe tnal Court on the day when they were summoned to appear because they had the impression that their employers would make the necessary arrangements for their representation and that they came to know oftheir conviction,when, in consequence, they were informed that their licences were revoked by the Licensing Authonty 5 10 15 Held, dismissing the applications
(1)Section 134 of Cap 155 empowers the Court, asa matter of discretion,to extend the time prescnbedfor filing an appeal 20 The discretion must be exercised in the interests of justice but shall only be exercised where «good cause· for extension has been shown What is a «good cause*depends on the factsofeachparticularcase
(2)If at any summary trial anaccused,whose personal attendance has not been dispensed with under s45
(1)ofCap 155. fails to appear, the Court may proceed to hearand determine thecaseinhisabsenceor,ifitthinksfit,adjournthecase and issue a warrant for his arrest (Section 89
(1)of Cap 155) 78 25 2 C.L.R. Michael and Other» v. Police
(3)Inthiscase themal Courtexercised itsdiscretion anddeterminedthecasein theabsence of theapplicants Thecharge didnotinvolvethestigma of dishonesty and the sentence imposed was only a fine 5
(4)The circumstances on which the applicants relied in support of these application donotconstitutea good cause Applicationsdismissed Casesreferredto Attorney-Generalν HpConstanti
(1968)2C LR 113, Peterv 77jePo/jce
(1963)lCLR 42, Djeredjianv TheRepublic
(1967)2 CLR 136, 10 PullenandAnother ν TheRepublic
(1969)2 C LR 199, Andreouv TheRepublic
(1972)2C L R 4, Papadopoulosv ThePolice
(1982)2 CLR 217, Michaehdesν DistnctOfficeiLamaca
(1984)2 C LR 1, Ahmet ν ThePolice, 19 CLR 127, 15 Kapodistnaν Petndes,22 C LR 181, Socrafisa/jas-Ko/t/ta/os-i/ ThePolice
(1967)2 CLR
- Applications. 20 Applications for theextension of thetimefor lodging an appeal against the conviction of the accused by the District Court of Limassol C HjiNicoIaou withM. Kypnanou, for theapplicants. G/.HjiPetrou,for therespondents TRIANTAFYLLIDES Ρ The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Mr Justice Stylianides. 25 30 STYLIANIDESJ.. Inthese applications the Courtis prayed to extendthetimefor lodging anappealagainsttheconvictionby the District Courtof Limassol on 18.8 86 The applications are based on Section 134 of the.Criminal Procedure Law, Cap.
- Together with the applications for extension of timetheintendednoticesof appeal are found. 79 Stylianides J. Michael and Others v. Police
(1987)Section 134, dealing with the extension of time of notice of appeal, reads: «134. Except inthecase ofaconviction involving sentence ofdeath, thetimewithinwhichnoticeofappeal orapplication forleaveto appeal maybe given may,ongood causeshown, 5 be extended atany limebytheSupreme Court.» Thelegislator madeaprovision astothetimewithinwhichsuch an appeal can betaken.Itfurther empowered theSupreme Court to extend the prescribed time; extending the time for appeal is obviouslya matterofdiscretion and thepower mustbeexercised 10 in the interests ofjustice butshall only be exercised where «good cause»forextension has been shown. In The Attorney-General of the Republic v.Petros Demetriou HjiConstanti,
(1968)2 C.L.R. 113,itwassaid: «Generally speaking, where the legislator sets a period of 15 time for the taking of a step in proceedings of a judicial character, such provision must be strictly enforced. It is connected with the public interest in the finality of litigation; and itaffects directlytheparties' rights therein.» The question of extension of time has been dealt with by this 20 Court in a number of cases and useful reference may be made, inter alia, to FinchFrederickPeter v. The Police,
(1963)1 C.L.R. 42;Djeredjianv.TheRepublic,
(1967)2C.L.R. 136;R. Pullenand Another v. The Republic,
(1969)2 C.L.R. 199; NikiAndreou v. The Republic,
(1972)2 C.L.R. 4; Papadopoulos v. The Police, 25
(1982)2 C.L.R. 217; Michaehdes v. District Officer of Lamaca,
(1984)2C.L.R.
- Whatisa «good cause»,aspointed outinPapadopoulos v. The Police (supra), depends on the facts and circumstances of the particularcase. Inthepresent casetheapplicantswereserved withsummonsof accused J.9 to appear before the Court sittingat Limassol on the hearing of a charge preferred against each one of them for using publiccarrieragainsttheconditionsofitstransportlicenceinforce. 80 30 2 C.L.R. 5 Michael and Others v. Police S a j B a r i t o
- The facts on which the applicantsrelyare that their employers, K. &M.Transport Co. Ltd., made arrangements to handle their case; they did not appear before the Court being with the impression that their employers would make the necessary arrangements for theirrepresentation inCourt;bysome oversight or otherwise for reasons unknown to them they were not represented inthese cases. The Court, though they failed to respond tothe summons, did notissueawarrant for theirarrest tocompel the attendance ofthe 10 accused before the Court but, having heard evidence in their absence, convicted and sentenced them to£15.-fine. The applicants came to know about the said conviction in October, 1986, when they were informed that the Licensing Authority due tothe said conviction suspended their licences. 15 Itiswellestablished principle thattheaccused inacriminalcase isentitled tobe presentand be heard.Theapplicantswere served withsummonses requiring them toappear before the Court. Ifatanysummary trialatthe timeappointed forhisappearance an accused whose personal attendance has not been dispensed 20 withunderSub-Section 1ofSection 45oftheLawfailsto appear, then onproof ofserviceofthesummonsuponhim,theCourt may proceed to hear and determine the case in his absence or, if it thinksfitadjourn the case and issue a warrant for hisarrest under the provisions of the Law - (Section 89
(1)of the Criminal 25 Procedure Law, Cap.155). In NiaziAhmed, v. ThePolice, 19C.L.R. 127, at p.128, itwas said: 30 «Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in exercising their power under section 87 (now 89
(1)) of the Criminal Procedure Law to convict a person in his absence should not exercise that powerwherethechargeinvolvesthestigmaofdishonestyand would be normally punishable by imprisonment rather than fine.» 81 Stylianides J. Michael and Others v. Police
(1987)InChristosKapodistria v.FetrakisA. Petrides,22C.L.R. 181,at p.183, after citingthe above, itwassaid: «We would now go further and say that in any case of a serious nature which would be normally punishable by imprisonment rather than fine, Courts should not exercise a power to try the accused in his absence but should issue a warrant for his arrest in accordance with law tobring up the accused before deterjnining the case.» 5 See, also, loannis Socratis alias «Kokkalos» v. The Police,
(1967)2 C.L.R. 26. 10 In the present case the District Court of Limassol exercised its discretion under Section 89
(1). The charge the accused were facing did not involve the stigma of dishonesty and the sentence met outtothem wasonlya fine. The failure of the accused to appear and the failure of their 15 employers to make the necessary arrangements for the representation oftheaccused andthecircumstancesonwhich the accused relycannotbeconsidered asconstitutingagoodcausefor granting the extension applied for. 20 The applications are, therefore, refused. Applications refused. 82