clr/1989/1989_1_17.pdf

(1989)PrerogativeOrders— Certiorari—Committal fortrialbefore Assizes— Oncetheinfonnation istiled,itisnolongerreviewablebycertiorari. Prerogative Orders— Certiorari—Attorney-General — The quasi judicialactsoftheAttorney-General arenotreviewablebycertiorari. Attorney-Genera! —His position in the administrationofjustice —His quasijudicialactsarenot reviewable byprerogativeorders. 5 The appellant was committed to trial before the Limassol Assize Courton28charges.Followingthecommittal,the Attorney-General filedtheinformation, chargingtherebytheappellantwith31charges. Before his arraignment the appellant applied to the Assize Court 10 forquashinghiscommittalandtheinformation. Theapplication was dismissed on the ground oflackofjurisdiction.Afurther application by the appellant for reserving relevant questions of law for the opinion ofthe Supreme Courtwas, also, dismissed. Asaresulttheapplicantfiledapplicationsforcertioraritoquashthe said two rulings of the AssizeCourt and the committal order and all proceedings consequent thereon. 15 The President ofthisCourtrefused leave.Hisdecision isreported in

(1988)1 C.L.R.57.Inrefusing leave,he,also,invokedthedelayin applying for quashing the committal order asan additional ground 2 0 forrefusing leave.The matterofdelaywasneitherraisednorargued bythe partiesbefore him. One of the appellant's complaints isthat thejudgment appealed from is not duly reasoned. In fact, the President stated that the depositions of the witnesses disclosed the offences for which the 25 appellant had been committed totrial. Held, dismissing the appeal: A) Per Pikis, Malachtos, Sawides, and KourrisJJ. concurring:

(1)The furnishing ofreasons explaining the decision reached is a fundamental attribute of the judicial process,and acondition underarticle30.2oftheConstitution forthe 30 valid determination of a judicial cause or matter. No laxity can be countenanced inthisarea oftheadministration ofjustiqe. Inthisinstance underconsideration thereasonsforthedecisionof the Court were clearly indicated, namely that the statements of prosecution witnessessupported the chargesforwhichtheaccused 3 5 was committed to trial. In accordance with s. 94, Cap. 155, the statements should be judged objectively. No element of subjective 18 1C.L.R. Ellinasv.Republic judicial evaluation of the evidential value came into play. Even contradictionsshould be ignored forpurposes of committal. 5 10

(2)An order of committal is not in itself authority for the prosecution of the person committed thereby before the Assize Court. Itseffect isconfined toconferring authority on the AttorneyGeneraltofound aninformation thereon,asprovided ins.107ofthe Criminal Procedure Law—Cap. 155. A "committal order exhausts its force upon the filing of the information. Its validity cannot be reviewed thereafter by way of certiorari. Inreality,theapplication forthereviewoftheorderofcommittalis but an indirect attempt to review by way of certiorari the'pertinent decision ofthe Attorney-General. 15 20 Neither in England nor in Cyprus, are decisions of the AttomeyGeneral subject tojudicialreviewbywayofcertiorari.TheAttorneyGeneralisunder theConstitution trusted withpower toprosecuteat hisdiscretion (article 113.2ofthe Constitution).Subject tothelimits ofthepowervestedinhimbytheConstitution, heisthearbiterofthe publicinterest under article 113.2.

(3)Th eAssizeCourthadnojurisdictiontoreviewthevalidityofthe committal order. Ajudicial order can only be reviewed in either of twoways:(a} Bywayof appeal when arightofappeal isbestowed byit,or (b)byway of certiorari. 25 Bothjurisdictionsvest exclusively inthe Supreme Court. B) Per Stylianides, J:

(1)The committal either after preliminatv, inquiryorwithoutpreliminaryinquiryisaprerequisiteforthefilingof an information charging the accused with any offence not triable summarily. 30 The filing ofan information bytheAttorney-General intheAssize Court isasinequa non for the AssizeCourt totryaperson. (Section 107 of Cap. 155).The Committal order does not vest by itself the AssizeCourt withpower totryacase. 35 an Upon the filingof the information the committalordermergesinit d it drops out of the picture and is no more reviewable. The information isasfrom thattimethe operative act. 19

(1989)EUinasv. Republic ThepoweroftheAttorney-Generalisofaquasijudicialnatureand isnotreviewable eitherunderArticle 146ofthe Constitution orby prerogativewrit.

(2)TheAssizeCourthadnopowertorevieworquash eitherthe committal order or the information as applied by the defence counsel. 5

(3)TheAssizeCourtinrejectingtheapplicationtoreservepointsof lawfortheopinionoftheSupremeCourtexerciseditspoweronthe correctprinciplesoflawasexpoundedbythisCourtinalongseries ofjudgments. 10

(4)ThefindingthattheCommittalwasjustifiedwasnotnecessary, as,inanyevent,therewasnopowertoquashitbycertiorari. C)PerSawides,J.

(1)Ihavenotbeenconvincedthatthedecision ofthetrialCourtinthattherewassufficientevidenceforcommittalof the appellant for trial and that ithad nojurisdiction to review the 15 validity of the committalorder waswrong.I have not further been convinced that there had been an error of law on the face ofthe recordorthatthediscretionoftheCourtwaswronglyexercised.

(2)The object of the committal order istoenable theAttorneyGeneraltofileaninformation beforetheAssizeCourtforthetrialofa 20 person committedfortrial.Oncesuchinformation isfiledtheobject and the validity of the committal order cease and merge in the information. Appealdismissed. esreferredto: InreArgyrides

(1987)1 CL.R. 23; Edwards (Inspectorof Taxes) v.BairstowandAnother[1955] 3All E.R. 48; InstrumaticLtd. v. SupabraseLtd. [1969)2AllE.R. 131; R. v. ElectricityCommissioners[1924]1 K.B.D.171; 30 ChristotiandOthersv. Iacovidou

(1986)1 CL.R.236; Sidnellv.WillsonandOthers [196611 AllE.R.681; LandSecuritiesPic. v.ReceiverfortheMetropolitanPoliceDistrict [1983]2AllE.R.254; CosrasPapao«opou/osfBiParte;

(1968)1 CL.R.496; 20 35 1 C.L.R. Ellinasv.Republic ExParteMaroulleti

(1970)1CL.R.75;^ Zenios &Another v.DisciplinaryBoard

(1978)1CL.R. 382; InRe Azinas

(1980)1CL.R. 466; InRe Malikidesand Others

(1980)1CL.R. 472; 5 InRe Kakos

(1984)1CL.R. 876; InRe Kakos

(1985)1CL.R. 250; Atkinson v. U.S.A.Government [1971) AC. 197; R v.Epping&HariowJustices [1973}1Q.B.D.433; InRe Ellinas

(1988)1CL.R. 57; 10 Policev.Athienitis

(1983)2 CL.R. 194; TheRepublic v.Kalli, 1961CL.R. 266; TheRepublic v.TheAssize CourtatKyrenia,Exparte The Attome GeneraloftheRepublic

(1971)2 CL.R. 222; InRe CharalambousandAnother

(1974)2CL.R. 37; 15 TheRepublic v.Sampson

(1977)2CL.R. 1; Policev.Ekdotiki Eteria

(1982)2CL.R.63; Pastellopoulosv. Republic

(1985)2CL.R. 165; Archangelos Domain Ltd. v. VanNievelt Condrian&Co's

(1988)CL.R.51; 20 InRe Charalambous

(1985)1CL.R. 746; Hadmor ProductionsLtd. v.Hamilton [1982]2W.L.R.322; InRe CharalambosAeropoulos and Others

(1988)1CL.R. 302; Githunguri v. Republic of Kenya

(1986)Commonwealth La Reports (Constitutional)p. 618; 25 R. v. Gee [1936]2AllE.R.89; R. v.Philips[1938]3AilE.R.674; R. v. Wharmby [1946]Cr.App.Rep. 174; R. v.Hall[196812AllE.R. 1009; 21 Ellinas v.Republic

(1989)R. v.Brooker[1977]65Cr.App.Rep. 181; Constantinidesv.Vima Ltd.

(1983)1CL.R.348; Papageorghiouv. HjiPieras

(1981)1CL.R. 560; HambouandOthersv. MichaelandAnother

(1981)1CL.R. 618; R.v.EppingandHarlowJJ.exparteMassaro[1973] 1AUE.R. 1011; 5 Neophytouv. Police

(1981)2C.LR. 195; PsarasandAnotherν Republic

(1987)2CL.R. 132; Panayiv. Police

(1968)2CL.R.124; loannidouv. Dikeos

(1969)1CL.R.235; PioneerCandyLtd. v.Tryfon&Sons

(1981)1CL.R.540; 10 Policev. Athienitis

(1983)2CL.R. 194; Xenophontosv. Republic, 2R.S.C.C

1. Appeals. Appealsbyapplicantsagainst thejudgments ofthePresidentof theSupreme CourtofCyprus (A.Loizou,P.)dated the 15thJune, J5 1988 (Appl.No.99/88)* and 100/88)** refusingtograntleave to apply for the issue of prerogative writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition inrespect ofacommittal order made byaDistrict Judge of Limassol committing the applicants for trial before the Assize Courtof Limassol. 20 G. Cacoyannis withM. Koukkidou (Miss), forthe appellants. L. Loucaides, Deputy Attorney-General of the Republic,tor the respondent. Cur.adv.vult. MALACHTOS,J.:The hearing inthese twoappeals started on 25 20.6.88andwas concludedon28.6.
2. On2.7.88,inview ofthe extreme urgency for the continuation of hearing of the case against the appellant before the Assize Court, we pronounced judgment where thetwoappealswereunanimously dismissedbut gave noreasons. 30 Since then, Pikis J., filed with the Registry of the Court a reasoned judgment, which Ihadthe opportunity to read, and I •See

(1988)1C.L.R.354. "See

(1988)1C.LR.

1. 22 1CL.R. Ellinasv. Republic MalachtosJ. mustsaythatIfullyagreewiththereasonsgiveninthatjudgment. Iwould, however, like to state that as regards the question of delay,raisedbythetrialjudgeinhisjudgment, Ileaveitopen asit was neitherargued before him norbefore us. 5 SAWIDES,J.:Thepresentappeals whichwereheard together as presenting common questions of law are directed against the decisions of the learned President of this Court dismissing appellant's applications 99/88 and 100/88 for leave to apply for the issue of the prerogative writs of certiorari, mandamus and 10 prohibition. By application 99/88 appellant applied ex-part for leave to applyforordersofmandamusand/orcertiorariand/or prohibition directed against the ruling of the Assize Court of Limassol delivered on 1stJune, 1988,rejecting the preliminary objections 15 raised on his behalf prior to his arraignment in Criminal Case 22446/87andagainstthedecisionofthesameCourtdeliveredon 7thJune, 1988refusing toreservequestionsoflawfortheopinion of the Supreme Court under s. 148 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap.
2. 20 The decision of the Assize Court challenged was itsrefusal to reserve for the opinion of the Supreme Court four questions of Law raised by counsel for appellant in support of hispreliminary objections against an information filed by the Attorney-General charging the appellant with 31 offences of stealing allegedly 25 having been committed between the 12th February, 1982 and 28thJuly,
3. Byapplication 100/88 appellant applied for leave toapply for an order of certiorari and/or prohibition for the purpose of A) quashing the committal of the appellant by the District Court of 30 Limassol for trial before the Assize Court of Limassol for the offences charged in the said Charge Sheet, made by the said District Court on 5.2.1988 in Criminal Case No. 22446/87, B) Prohibiting the Assize Court of Limassol from proceeding to arraign and/or totrythe applicant in criminal case No. 22446/87 35 on the basis of the said committal made by the District Court of Limassol on 5.2.1988 and/or on the Information filed by the Attorney-General on the basisand/or in consequence of the said committal, and C)that all proceedings in the said Criminal Case No. 22446/87 (before the DistrictCourt and/or the Assize Court) 40 be stayed untilafter thehearing ofthe motion or further Order. 23 SavvidesJ. Ellinasv.Republic

(1989)The two applications were heard together and the learned President delivered separate judgment ineach one refusing leave for the reasons stated therein. The learned President in his judgment in application 100/88 which was delivered first concluded that on the material placed 5 before him, in particular the record of the committal proceedings there was sufficient evidence tocommitthe appellant for trialand that there had been no error of law apparent on the face of the record. He also concluded that the Assize Court' had no jurisdiction to review the validity of the committal order. The 10 learned President went further and ex proprio motu without having heard any argument by counsel for the appellant in this respect, found that there was delay in thefilingof the application for leave, which he considered as inexcusable as «after the committal of the applicant no steps were taken for quashing the 15 order in question except after the ruling of the AssizeCourt given on the 1stJune, 1988,dismissingthepreliminaryobjections ofthe defence regarding the validity of the order of committal of the applicant and theirrefusal toreservefourQuestionsofLawforthe opinion of the Supreme Court». ^ Inhisjudgment inapplication 99/88thelearnedPresident found himself inagreement withtheapproach oftheAssizeCourtonthe issuesraised before itandreiterated hisreasonsfor refusing leave for an order of certiorari and prohibition as explained by him in application 100/88. He concluded that the Assize Court 25 «exercised their discretion properly and in a manner consistent with theapproach ofthisCourtinanumberofcases»and stressed the desirability that the trial of a criminal case and especially an AssizeCourt case should notbe interrupted unduly. Having heard exhaustive argument by counsel on both sides I 30 have notbeen convinced thatthedecisionofthetrialCourtinthat therewassufficient evidenceforcommittaloftheappellantfortrial and that it had no jurisdiction to review the validity of the committal order was wrong. Ihave not further been convinced thatthere hadbeen anerroroflawontheface oftherecordorthat 35 thediscretion oftheCourtwaswronglyexercised.Iagreewiththe reasons which have been given by the learned President in his elaboratejudgment onthesaidmatters.Ialsoagreeandadoptthe lucidexposition ofthelawof mybrother Pikis,J., inthejudgment 24 1CL.R. Ellinasv. Republic SawidesJ. delivered by him and with the contents of which I had the opportunity toacquaint myself inadvance. The learned President rightly opined that an Assize Court had no jurisdiction to review the validity of a committal order. The 5 object ofthecommittal order istoenable theAttorney-General to filean information before theAssizeCourtforthetrialofa person committed for trial.Once such information isfiled the object and the validity of the committal order cease and merge in the information. The Assize Court in any event isnot the competent 10 Court clothed with revisional jurisdiction to test the validity of a committal order. Onthequestion ofdelayIhavemyreservationsastowhetherin the circumstances of the present case there hasbeen inexcusable delayinthefilingof the applications. Having however concluded 15 that the applications were rightly refused on the merits, Ishall refrain from tackling thisissue asnouseful purpose willbe served in the present case. I leave however the question open to be decided ina proper case inwhichsame mayhave anybearing on itsoutcome. 20 Intheresult,Iagreethatthesetwoappealsshouldbe dismissed. STYLIANIDES, J.: The appellant on the 5th February, 1988, was committed to trial before the Limassol Assize Court in Criminal Case No.22446/87 on twenty-eight charges. On the 3rd May, 1988, information was filed by the Attomey25 General inthe aforesaid casecharging thereby theappellant with 31charges. Prior to arraignment to the information defending counsel raisedanumberofpreliminaryobjections. Heobjected,interalia, that the committal of the appellant was invalid; that the 30 information wasdefective inthatitcharged offences not disclosed in the statements of the witnesses laid before the Committing Judge. He invitedtheassize Courtto quash the information. On 1stJune, 1988,theAssizeCourtdelivereditsrulingwhereby itrejected the objections on the ground that ithadnojurisdiction 35 to inquire intothe validityof thecommittal order ortoreview the exercisebytheAttorney-General ofhispowersforthefilingofthe information. 25 StylianidesJ. Ellinasv.Republic

(1989)On3rdJune, 1988,the defence counselapplied totheAssize Court under section 148 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155,toreservefortheopinionoftheSupremeCourtthefollowing questions:1.HasthisCourtjurisdictiontoconsideranobjection raisedby 5 defence counsel before arraignment that the committal of the accused for trial was invalid on the ground that the statements produced totheCommittingJudgedidnotdisclosethe offences forwhichtheaccusedwascommittedand/ortheoffencescharged intheinformation? 2.HasthisCourtjurisdictiontoconsideranobjection raisedby defence counsel before arraignment that the information is defective inthattheoffences chargedtherebyarenotdisclosedin thestatementsproducedtotheCommittingJudge? 3.CanthisCourtproceedtoarraigntheaccusedandthereafter 15 totryhimonaninformation whichchargesoffences notdisclosed inthestatementsproducedtotheCommittingJudge? 4. If the answer of the Supreme Court is that this Court has jurisdiction to consider the objections referred to in question 1 and/or 2 above and/or that this Court has no jurisdiction to 20 proceed totrythecaseinthecircumstancessetoutinquestion 3 above,canthisCourtinconsideringthedefenceobjectionslookat thestatementsproducedtotheCommittingJudge? TheAssizeCourtafterhearingargumentfrombothsidesonthe 7thJune, 1988,inexercisingitsdiscretionrejectedtheapplication 25 andrefused toreserveanyoftheaforesaid questions. Onthe9thJune,1988,theapplicantfiledApplicationsNos.99/ 88and 100/88praying forleavetoapplyfortheissueofwritsof «Certiorari and/or Mandamus and/or Prohibition» against the rulingoftheAssizeCourtofLimassoldeliveredon1stJune,1988, 30 andtherefusal oftheAssizeCourttoreservethequestionsoflaw fortheopinionoftheSupremeCourt. ApplicationNo.100/88wasfiledexabundantecautela;thereby leavewassoughttoapplyforwritsofCertiorariandProhibitionto bring up and quash the committal order and/or proceedings 35 flowingtherefrom -filingofinformation andforbidding theAssize Courtfrom proceedingwiththehearingofthecase. 26 10 1CL.R. Ellinasv.Republic StylianidesJ. This Court dealt with the utmost urgency with these applications,astheAssizeCourt,duetothem,interruptedthetrial. Theapplicationsweretaken upbythePresident ofthisCourt, whoafter hearingaddressesbycounseloftheappellanton 13th 5 June,1988,deliveredDecisionson 15thJune, 1988,wherebyhe refused leave. Theappellant being aggrieved took these appeals against the said Decisions. Asboth appeals raise identical points they were takentogether. lr Extensive and thorough arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the Deputy AttorneyGeneralontheissuesinvolvedintheseappeals. Thepowertoissueprerogativewritsisvestedbyparagraph4of Article 155 of the Constitution and sections 3 and 9 of the 15 Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law, 1964 (LawNo.33/64)exclusivelyintheSupremeCourt. BytheprerogativewritofCertiorarithisCourtexercisescontrol over an inferior Court, not in an appellate capacity, but in a supervisory capacity. The control is exercised by quashing any 20 determination by the inferior Court, which on the face of it, offends againstthe law.Thecontrolisexercisedbyremovingan orderordecisiontotheSupremeCourtandthenbyquashingit. Certiorari existsto quash an order of aninferior Court on the ground, inter alia, ofan errorof lawapparent onthe face ofthe 25 proceedings. (See,intealia,InreArgyrides

(1987)1 CL.R.23.) Wrongexerciseofdiscretionorexerciseofdiscretiononwrong principlesoflawarepointsoflaw.(Edwards(InspectorofTaxes)v. BairstowandAnother [1955] 2 AllE.R. 48;InstrumaUc Ltd.v. Supabrase, Ltd.[1969]2AllE.R.131.) 30 Prohibitionisawritdirected toaninferior Courtwhich forbids thatCourttocontinueproceedingsthereininexcessofjurisdiction or in contravention of the laws of the land. (R. v. Electricity Commissioners[1924]1 K.B.D.171.) Certiorariisdiscretionary.Prohibitionisdiscretionarywhenthe 35 defectisnotpatent.Wherethedefectofjurisdictionisapparenton the face of the record no question of discretion arises and the 27 StylianidesJ. Ellinas v. Republic

(1989)applicant isentitled asofrighttothe order sought. [Christohand Others v.lacovidou

(1986)1CL.R. 236.) Withregardtopracticeandprocedurethereisnoprovisionatall either in the Courts ofJustice Law, 1960 (LawNo. 14/60),or in any Rules made by the Supreme Court or its predecessor, the 5 High Court. During the colonial administration the Courts of Justice Legislation provided that intheabsence of local provision the jurisdiction should be exercised, so far as circumstances permitted, in accordance with the practice and procedure observed by the Courts in England. The Law applicable in the 10 Republic of Cyprusisset outinsection 29ofLaw 14/60.There is a lacuna of rules. The English rules are not applicable in the Republic. This Court by practice followed and applied a procedure analogous but not identical to that applied by the High Court in 15 England before Independence Day in the exercise of this jurisdiction. Atthe stage of leave the Court mustbesatisfied bythe material before it, if accepted asaccurate, that «prima facie» case is made outor an «arguable point»israisedjustifying the grantingof leave 20 totheapplicant tomovethisCourttoissueaprerogativewrit.The expressions«arguablecase»and«primafaciecase»areusedinthe sense ofa casethat there isabona fide arguable case,withoutthe need to go into any rebutting evidence put forward. Itis a case which is sufficiently arguable and merits an answer. - {Sidnellv. 25 Wilsonand Others [1966]1AllE.R.681,atp.685;Land Securities Pic v. Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District,[1983] 2AH E.R. 254, at p. 258; Costas Papadopouhs (ExParte),

(1968)1 CL.R. 496;ExParteLoucia KyriacouChristouMaroulleti,

(1970)1 C.L.R. 75;InRe NinaPanaretou

(1972)1 C.L.R. 165;Zenios & 30 Another v. DisciplinaryBoard

(1978)1CL.R. 382;Inre Azinas,

(1980)1C.L.R. 466; InreMalikidesand Others

(1980)1 CL.R. 472;InreKakos,

(1984)1CL.R.876;InreKakos,

(1985)1 CL.R. 250;InreArgyrides

(1987)1C.L.R. 23.) It is well settled that the Assize Court is an inferior Court 35 established by Law 14/60 in furtherance of the provisions of Article 152 ofthe Constitution. 28 1CL.R. Ellinasv. Republic StylianidesJ Themattersthatfallfor decision inthese appealsare:The nature and reviewability of a committal order. The nature and reviewability of the information and the power of the Attorney-General to frame and file an information. The 5 jurisdiction oftheAssUeCourtinrespect totheaforesaid matters. The lackof reasoning of thedecisionsunder appeal and lastlythe question of delay in filing the application for leave to issue prerogativewrits. The appellant was committed for trial without a preliminary ,10 inquiry on the basis of section 3 of the.Criminal Procedure (TemporaryProvisions) Law, 1974 (LawNo. 42/74), bya Judge ofthe DistrictCourt of Limassol. The object of the necessity of a case going through committal proceedings before trial by the Assize Court isa safeguard for a 15 citizen toensure that he cannot be made tostand histrialwithout sufficient grounds. It serves as a safeguard of the liberty of the subjectandoftheordeal ofstandingatrialbefore theAssizeCourt unnecessarily. {Atkinsonv. U.S.A. Government, [1971]A.C 197; R. v.Epping& HarlowJustices, [1973] 1Q.B.D. 433). 20 TheAssizeCourtisvestedwithjurisdictionbysection 20ofLaw 14/60. The committal either after preliminary inquiry or without preliminary inquiryisaprerequisiteforthefiling ofan information charging the accused withany offence nottriablesummarily. The 25 power conferred on the committing Court under the Criminal Procedure Law,Cap.155and under Law42/74isa discretionary power which hastobe exercisedjudicially on the material before it.With regard tocommittalfortrialwithoutpreliminary inquiryIn Re YiannakisP.Ellinas(1,988) 1CL.R. 57.1said atp. 78:30 «TheDistrictCourtshallconsidertheevidence disclosed in thecopy of statementstobesufficient tocommitthe accused for trial,ifsuch evidence issuch as, ifuncontradicted, would raise a probable presumption of his guilt, independently of whether there isa conflict ofevidence inthe statements.» 35 Thetest isthe probable presumption of guilt.Committal order being ajudicial act, though not appeliable, as it isnot within the ambitofthedefinition of«criminalproceedings»-Law14/60-itis reviewableby Certiorari. 29 StylianidesJ. Ellinasv. Republic

(1989)Thefilingof an information by the Attorney-General in the AssizeCourtisasinequanonfortheAssizeCourttotryaperson. (Section 107ofCap. 155).Thecommittalorderdoesnotrestby itselftheAssizeCourtwithpowertotryacase. The Constitution by Article 113and the Criminal Procedure .5 Law by sections 107 and 108 confer exclusive power on the Attorney-Generaltoframeandfilethe information. Uponthefilingoftheinformationthecommittalordermergesin itand itdropsout ofthepictureand isnomorereviewable.The information isasfrom thattimetheoperativeact. 10 The Attorney-General may charge an accused in the information withanyoffence whichinhisopinion isdisclosedby thedepositionsorthestatementsofthewitnesses,asthecasemay be, either in addition to or insubstitution for the offence upon whichtheaccusedhasbeencommittedfortrial.Thispowerofthe 15 Attorney-Generalisofaquasijudicialnatureandisnotreviewable eitherunderArticle146oftheConstitutionorbyprerogativewrit. (CharilaosXenophontos andTheRepublic(MinisterofInterior),2 R.S.C.C89;Policev.Athienihs

(1983)2CL.R. 194.) Anumber of authoritiesand caselawofotherjurisdictionson 20 committal orders and indictments were cited. They are not applicableinthiscountryandhavenobearinginthiscase. Section86ofCap. 155isnotempoweringtheAssizeCourtto inquireintoeitherthecommittalproceedingsandcommittalorder orintotheexerciseofthepoweroftheAttorney-Generaltoframe 25 theinformation. The mattersraisedbycounselbefore theAssize Courtarebeyondthescopeoftheprovisionsofthissection. The AssizeCourt had nopower toreview orquash either the committal order or the information as applied by the defence counsel. TheAssizeCourtinrejectingtheapplicationtoreservepointsof lawfortheopinion oftheSupremeCourtexercised itspoweron thecorrectprinciplesoflawasexpoundedbythisCourtinalong series ofjudgments. (See, interalia, TheRepublic v. Georghios TheocliKalli, 1961CL.R.266;TheRepublicv.TheAssizeCourt 35 atKyrenia,Ex-ParteTheAttorney-Generalofthe Republic

(1971)2CL.R.222;InReCharalambosN. CharalambousandAnother

(1974)2C.L.R.37; TheRepublicv. NicolaosSampson

(1977)2 30 30 1C.L.R. Ellinasv.Republic StylianidesJ. C.L.R. 1; Police v. Ekdotiki Eteria

(1982)2 CL.R. 63; Pastellopoullosv. Republic

(1985)2CL.R. 165.) ThereviewbythisCourtbyprerogativewritofadecisionofthe inferiorCourtislimitedtoitslegalityandnottoitscorrectness. 5 WeagreewiththePresidentoftheCourtthatnomanifesterror oflawappearsontherecord. Theappellantcomplainsthatthedecisionsunderappealarenot dulyreasoned. With regard to reasoning of judgments Irepeat the following 10 passagefromtheJudgment inArchangelosDomain Ltd.v. Van NieveltCondrian&Co's,

(1988)1 CL R.51atpp 54-561said:- 15 «PriortotheestablishmentoftheRepublicandthecoming into force of the Constitution, in relation to criminal proceedings, s. 113

(1)of the CriminalProcedure Law,Cap. 155required the reasonsfor thedecisionstoberecordedin writing.Incivilproceedingsjudgmentshadtobereasonedas a requirement oftheverynotion ofproperdeterminationof disputesbyjudicialprocess. 20 Article 30, para. 2 of the Constitution provides that judgments determining the civilrightsand obligations, orof anycriminalchargeagainstapersonshallbereasoned. The notion of 'fair trial' requiresreasonstobe givenbya Courtforitsdecisionandthisappliestocivilaswellascriminal proceedings. 25 30 35 Aparty must knowthe reasonsfor the failure of hiscase. Thereasonsarefurthernecessarytoenableapartytodecide whetherandonwhatgroundsanappealshouldbelodged.As theadministration ofjusticeisapublicfunction, thepeoplein general are entitled to know the reasons of the judicial decisions. Adequate judicial reasoning and its soundness upholds faith in the Law and strengthens confidence inthe judiciary. In Papaellina v. EPCO(Cyprus) Ltd. and Lion Products Ltd.,

(1967)1 CL.R.338,Stavrinides,J.observedthatthere is a need for the trial Judge to formulate clearly in his 31 ylianidesJ. Ellinasv.Republic

(1989)judgment the specific issue orissuesof fact arising between thepartiesandtostatehisfindingforsuchissueoreachoneof such issues, and that Judges trying civil disputes should unfailingly doso. ThetrialCourthastodeterminetheissueswhichariseand togiveitsreasonsforitsdetermination. 5 The mandatory provision of para. 2 of Article 30 of the Constitution hasbeenjudiciallyconsideredbythisCourtina number of cases. (See inter alia Anastassis Panayi v. The Police

(1968)2CL.R. 124;Theodoraloannidouv. Charilaos 10 Dikeos

(1969)1 CL.R.235;PioneerCandyLtd.andAnother v. Stelios Tryfon and Sons Ltd.,

(1981)1 CL.R. 540; Papageorghiou v.Hjipieras

(1981)1 CL.R. 560; Androula Ceorghiou Hambou and Others v. Maria Charalambous MichaelandAnother

(1981)1CL.R. 618;MichaelChristou 15 andAnotherv. MariaAngelidouandAnother

(1984)1CL.R. 492;InthematterofEleftheriaCharalambousofNicosia,Civil Appeal No. 6835,Judgment delivered on 22/7/87 not yet reported and PsarasandAnotherv. TheRepublic, Criminal AppealsNos.4715and4718,Judgmentdeliveredon 15/10/ 20 87notyetreported. Whatisconsiderdsufficient 'reasoning'dependslargelyon thecircumstancesofeachparticularcase. Article6.1oftheEuropeanConvention onHumanRights, which,havingbeen ratifiedbyLaw39/62,hassuperiorforce 25 to the domestic legislation made under the Constitution, secures to everyone the right to a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, or of any criminalchargeagainsthim. The notion of 'fair trial*requiresreasonstobe given bya 30 Courtforitsdecision.However,ifaCourtgivesreasons,then prima facie the requirements are satisfied, and this presumption isnotupsetsimplybecausethejudgmentdoesnot dealspecificallywithonepointconsideredbyanapplicantto bematerial.ItdoesnotfollowfromArticle6thatreasonsgiven 35 byaCourtshould dealspecifically withallpointswhichmay havebeenconsideredbyonepartytobeessentialtohiscase; a partydoesnothaveanabsoluterighttorequirereasonsto begivenforrejectingeachofhisarguments.If,however,the Court had ignored a fundamental defence, whichhad been 40 32 1CL.R. 5 Ellinas v. Republic Stylianides clearly put before it and which, If successful, would hav discharged himinwholeorinpartfrom theliability,thenthi couldbesufficient torebutthepresumption ofafairhearinc The extent of the reasons to be given for a decision mu: depend on the nature and the complexity of the matte concerned. (Digest of Strasbourg Case-Law relating to th European Convention on Human Rights

(1984), volume2 pp,424-427.)» The learned President after perusing the contents of th 10 statements of the witnesses - the material placed before th CommittingJudge-heconcludedthattherewassufficient reaso tocommittheaccusedfortrialbefore theAssizeCourt. In myview, having regard to what wassaid earlier on inthi judgmentaboutthecommittalorder,thisfindingwasunnecessar 15 inthedetermination oftheapplication forleave. Nevertheless, in the context of this case, taking int condideration thetest forcommittal though the reasoning ofth decisionsunderappealmightbemoreelaborate,theyarenots> faulty astoviolatetheprincipleofthereasoningofjudgmentssc 20 outabove. Theapplicationsforleaveweredismissedonthefurther groun thattherewasaninexcusable delayinthefilingofapplicationfc quashingthecommittalorder. An application for leave must be made with reasonabl 25 diligence. Leave willnot be granted unless applied for within reasonabletime.Leaveisgrantedonlywherediligenceisshow by applicant in real need of the remedy. (In Re Charalambou

(1985)1C.L.R.746.) Th'eissueofdelayistakenupbytheCourtexpropriomotu. 30 InHadmorProductionsLtd. v.Hamilton [1982]2W.L.R. 32; (H.L.)itwasheldthatpointsnotarguedbycounselshouldnotbi relieduponbytheJudge. Itisafundamental ruleofnaturaljusticethataJudgeshouldno deprivethepartiesofthebenefitofbeingheardonsuchapoint.I 35 istherightofeachpartytobeinformedofanypointthatitisgoint toberelieduponbytheJudgeandtobegivenanopportunitytc statewhathisansweris. 33 StylianidesJ. Ellinasv. Republic

(1989)It is desirable, when a judgment is reserved and the Judge intends to rely on a point notbeing argued, toreopeon the case and give the opportunity to counsel appearing for the party to expresshisview on it. Astheappeal willbedismissedonthegroundssetoutearlieron, 5 itisunnecessarytodetermine theadditional groundofdismissalof theapplication because of delay. For all the foregoing reasons, these appeals are hereby dismissed. PIKIS,J.:The twoappealsaredirectedagainsttherefusal ofthe 10 learned President oftheSupreme Courttograntleavetoapply for certiorari for the purpose of reviewingand ultimately quashing (

1. a)a committal order made by a district judge of Limassol, committing the appellant fortrialbefore theAssizeCourt, and, (
2. b)a decision of the Assize Court of Limassol declining 15 jurisdiction to inquire intothe validityof the committal order. The judgment of A. Loizou, P., refusing leave to review the order of committal, is also challenged for lack of due reasoning. Reference, itwas said, tothe statements founding the committal, coupled withtheopinion of the learnedJudge thatthey disclosed 20 material warranting the committal, does not exhaust the duty of the Court to reason itsjudgment in the comprehensive manner required byarticle30.2of the Constitution. The Court held that the content of the statements adduced by theprosecutionjustified thecommittal oftheaccused fortrial.The 25 test of committal remained, it must be added, unchanged by enactment of Law 42/74 (amended by Law 44/83), as authoritatively decided bythe Full Bench InRe Ellinas.*The test remains that laid down in s.94 of the Criminal Procedure Law Cap. 155, providing for the committal of the accused whenever 30 the evidence (thestatementsafter theenactment ofLaw42/74)is «...suchasifuncontradicted, wouldraiseaprobable presumption of his guilt». Irrespective and independently of the sufficiency of theevidencefounding thecommittal,theCourtwasdisinclinedto grant leave on account ofthe delaythatoccurred inthepursuit of 35 the discretionary remedy of certiorari. The principles governing the exercise ofjudicialdiscretion inthisareawerealsothe subject *

(1988)1 C.L.R. 57. 34 1CL.R. Ellinas v.Republic PikisJ. of analysis in the decision of the Supreme Court In Re Charalambos Aeroporos and Others* Whereas the order of committal was made on 5.2.88 the applicant remained inactive and no stepswere taken tohave itquashed untilafter the filingof 5 the information on 3.5.88 and sunbsequent refusal of the Assize Court to entertain an application to set aside the information on groundsof invalidityoftheorder of committal (givenon 1.6.88). A.Loizou,P.,agreedwiththeviewtakenbytheAssizeCourtof Limassol respecting the limits of itsjurisdiction; specifically, the 10 absence ofjurisdiction toinquireintothevalidityofthe committal order.Thereafter, theAssizeCourtrefused tostateacase,unders. 148 - Cap. 155, for the opinion of the Supreme Court and dismissed an application to that end made on behalf of the accused. 15 The discretion toreserve questionsof law atthe instanceof the accused, conferred by s.148, should be sparsely exercised and then onlywhen absolutelynecessary forthe dueadministrationof justice. The caselaw favours no lesser standard.** Only issuesof exceptional importance, not elucidated by decided cases but 20 crucial for the progress of the case should, in the opinion of the AssizeCourt, bereservedunder s.148 -Cap. 155,atthe instance ofthe accused. Learned counsel for the appellant challenged nearly every aspect of the two decisions of the trial Court here under appeal. 25 He raised elaborate arguments in support of hissubmissions the essence of which we shall attempt to reproduce, albeit briefly, below. Counsel correctly submitted that atthe stage of application for leave to apply for certiorari, the applicant does not have to 30 establish his case conclusively. Leave should be granted whenever aprimafacie case ofentitlement totheremedyismade out.Theevidentialburden castonthepartyapplyingforleaveand the attributes ofaprima facie case,werethesubject of discussion by the Full Bench In Re Kakos***.A prima facie case is one 35 sufficiently cogent or arguable to merit an answer. Legal *

(1988)1 C.L.R.302. *· (Republicv. Kalii, 1961 C.L.R. 266;Republicv. Sampson{1977)2C.L.R. 1;Policev. EkdotiklEteria

(1982)2CL.R. 63;Pastellopoulosv.Republic

(1985)2C.L.R. 165). " *

(1985)1 C.L.R.250). 35 PiklsJ. Ellinasv. Republic

(1989)propositions, ontheother hand can, asindicated intheabove case,beexploredwithequalamenityatthestageofapplicationfor leave.Aprimafacie case cannotbegrounded onwhattheCourt regards asanunsound legal proposition. The case also throws light on the nature of the jurisdiction to grant certiorari, a 5 jurisdictionprimarilyintentedtoensurethatinferiorcourtsoperate within thebounds oftheirjurisdiction and observe fundamental rulesoflaw;alsothecaseisinstructiveindrawingattentiontothe salient fact that incertiorari proceedings the Court isconcerned with the legality of the impugned order as opposed to its 10 correctness. ThereasonsgivenbytheCourtoffirstinstanceinsupportofits rulings fell farshort,itwassubmitted, oftherequisitesofaduly reasoned judgment. Recording theconclusions oftheCourtis neversufficient, counselargued.Tofulfil therequirementofdue 15 reasoning the Court must disclose the reasons for those conclusions.Inthecourseofthehearingwedidhaveoccasionto lookatthestatements andschedulesattached thereto, founding theoffences forwhichtheappellantwascommitted. Agreatpartoftheargumentsofcounsel wasdirected towards 20 persuadingusthattheAssizeCourthadjurisdictiontoinquireinto thevalidityofthecommittalorder,submitting intheprocessthat Englishcourts,clothedwithjurisdictioncomparabletothatofthe AssizeCourt,haveoften assumedcompetencetoinquireintothe justification ofacommittalorderjudged,interalia,fromtheangle 25 ofadequacyoftheevidencetenderedinsupportofthecommittal. Section 86ofthe Criminal Procedure Law-Cap. 155, confers jurisdiction upon thecourt oftrialtoquash forgood reasonthe information orthecharge,asthecasemaybeor,anypartofthem, onamotionmadeeitherbefore theaccusedpleadsorinarrestof 30 judgment. Thepowers conferred bys.86arewide enough to empower ina proper case theAssize Court toinquire intothe validityofa committal order;aviewreinforced, intheopinionof counsel,bytheprovisions ofs.108ofCap. 155,authorisingthe Attorney-General in framing the Information to charge the 35 accused withanyoffences disclosedbythedepositionseitherin addition toor in substitution fortheoffences upon whichthe accused hasbeen committed for trial. Mr.Cacoyannis made extensivereference*toEnglishcaselawtendingtosupportthaton • .(R.v.Gee11936]2AllER. 89, ft v.Philips{1938}3ABE.R.674;ftv.Whaimby11946]Cr. App. Rep. 174; ft v.HaB(1968]2ABE.R.1009;ft.v.Brooker11977]65Cr. App.Rep. 181). 36 1CL.R. EWnasv.Republic PiklsJ. occasions the Assize Court in England assumed jurisdiction to quash an indictment for lack or inadequacy of the evidence foundingthecommittal.InanyeventtheCourtshouldnotrefuse jurisdictiontostemabuseofprocess,anattributeoftheautonomy 5 of the judicial power.* The founding of the information on an invalid committal order amounted, inthe submission ofcounsel, toanabusethatshouldnothavebeencountenancedbythecourt oftrial. Itmustbenoticedthatthelegalframework forthecommittalof 10 theaccusedfortrialandthepowersoftheCourtoftrialinEngland are notidenticaltothecorrespondingprovisionsofourCriminal Procedural Law. The Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933, s.2 in particular, that contains provisions analogous to those of s.108, Cap. 155, expressly provides in 15 subsection 3 that an indictment preferred, contrary to the provisions of subsection 2,shall be liable to be quashed.**The absenceofasimilarprovisionfromourcodeofprocedureshould make,accordingtocounsel,nodifference northeentrustmentof thepower toframe the indictmenttotheAttorney-General.The 20 power oftheAttorney-Generaltoprosecute shouldbesubjectto judicialcontrol,apropositionsupportedbyreferencetoadecision oftheKenyaCourts,notablyGithunguriv.RepublicofKenya*** Lastly, counsel agreed with the viewtaken InRe Charalambos Aeroporos and Others**** that the procedure applicable to 25 certiorariproceedingsshouldbethatapplicableinEnglandatthe timeofindependence. Mr Loucaides for his part supported every aspect of the judgment of the trial Court and refuted the submission thatthe reasons furnished fell short of the attributes of a.reasoned 30 judgment. Necessaryasitisineverycasetoreasonajudgment,asrequired byarticle30.2oftheConstitution,theform,extentandcontentof reasoning, may vary infinitely with the subject of the judgment. Where the conclusions of the Court rest on inescapable or 35 inevitableinferences thereasonigmaybecorrespondinglyshort, aspointed outinPapageorghiou v. HjiPieras***** andHambou andOthersv. MichaelandAnother.****** • (See,Constantinidesv. MmaLtd.

(1983)1 C.LR.348). ** (Halsbmy'sStatutesofEngland,3rded.. Vol. 8 p.308etseq.). *** (1986CommonwealthLawReports(Constitutional)p.618). ****

(1988)1CLR. 302. *****

(1981)1 C.LR.560,at563, 564. * " · * *

(1981)1C.L.R. 618 37 PikisJ. Ellinas v. Republic

(1989)The test of committal in Cyprus is, in thesubmission ofMr. Loucaides,different from thatobtaininginEngland.InCyprusthe testisthatof probable presumptionof guilt*whereas in England, thatof sufficiency of evidence toputtheaccused ontrial;**atest interpreted as requiringthemakingoutof aprimafacie case *** 54 Thematerialdisclosed inthestatementstowhichbrief reference was made,insupportof thecommittal oftheaccused,warranted thecharges forwhichtheappellantwas committed totrial. Because of the need to ensure thatthetnalbefore theAssize Courtwas notinterruptedfor anundulylong interval of time,we 10 gave our judgment shortly after the conclusion of the appeals. Bothappeals were dismissed. Below, wegivethereasonsforour decision: (A)Thereasoningof ajudgment; Thefurnishing of reasons explaining thedecision reached,isa fundamental attribute of the judicial process, and a condition underarticle30.2oftheConstitutionforthevaliddeterminationof ajudicialcauseormatter.Theneedtofurnishduereasonsandthe form thatthe reasoning may take,was the subject of discussion and analysis in a good number of cases.**** In Neophytou v. Police,***** to which our attentionwas drawn, it was observed thatthedue reasoning of ajudgmentis notonlyconstitutionally ordained butalso essential for thesustenanceof the trustof the public in the mission of the Judiciary. No laxity can be countenanced in this area of the administration of justice. The repercussions that may flow from failure to reason a judgment were thesubject of analysis inthefairly recentdecision ofPsaras andAnotherv. Republic****** Intheinstanceunderconsiderationthereasonsforthedecision oftheCourtwereclearlyindicated,namely,thatthestatementsof 30 prosecution witnesses supported the charges for which the accused was committed to trial. In accordance with s.94, Cap. * (s 94, Cap 155) " (s7, Magistrates CourtsAct 1952-Halsbuiy's Statutes of England, 2nd ed, Vol 32). *** fft ν EppingandHarlowJJ, exparteMassaro[1973} 1AllΕR 1011, 1012) **** (See, inter alia,Panayi v. Police

(1968)2CLR 124, loannides ν Dikeos

(1969)1 CLR 235, PioneerCandyLtd ν Tryfon &Sons

(1981)1C LR 540) *****

(1981)2CLR 195. ******

(1987)2CLR 132 38 15 20 25 1CL.R. Ellinasv.Republic PikisJ. 155, the statements should bejudged objectively. No elementof subjective judicial evaluation of the evidential value came into play. Even contradictions should be ignored for purposes of committal. The statements fell to be judged on their face value. 5 The Court of Appeal isin the same position as thefirstinstance Courttoreflect upontheirimplications.Thematerialby reference towhichthesoundnessofthejudgmentofthetrialCourtfallstobe judged isthe sameand beingof thesameopinion, having looked atthestatements,asthetrialCourt,wecannotfaultthereasonsfor 10 the judgment of the Court for inadequacy. They were comprehensive to the extent of laying the premise on which the judgmentwasfounded andprovidingthematerialupon whichthe soundness of that premise could be judged on appeal. Very probably the learned President feltthatanalysisand discussionof 15 the incriminating inferences apttobe drawn from the statements, might conceivably prejudice the fair trial of the accused and for thatreasonexpressedhisreasonslaconicallyinthewayhedid.For theabove reasonswe cannot upholdthisground of appeal. (B)The meritsofthe decision: 20 An order of committal is not in itself authority for the prosecution of the person committed thereby before the Assize Court.Itseffect isconfinedtoconferringauthorityontheAttorneyGeneral to found an information thereon, asprovided ins.107 of theCriminalProcedureLaw-Cap. 155.Apersoncanonlybe put 25 on trial before the Assize Court«... upon an information filed by the Attorney-General in the AssizeCourt in which such person is tobetried.»Thefilingofaninformation bytheAttorney-Generalis a prerequisite for the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the AssizeCourtbys.20 ofthe CourtsofJustice Law -14/60. 30 A committal order exhausts its force,upon the filing of the information. Itsvalidity cannot be reviewed thereafter by wayof certiorari. Before the filing of the information it may, being an order of an inferior court, be reviewed and in a proper case quashed in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on the 35 Supreme Court byarticle 155.4;and ifdischarged, itdeprivesthe Attorney-General of authority to found an information thereon. After the laying of the information the committal order merges in theinformation andcannotbereviewedunlessthereisjurisdiction toreviewbywayofcertiorarithedecisionofthe Attorney-General 40 to file an information before the Assize Court. In reality, the 39 PikisJ. EJlinasv. Republic

(1989)application for the review of the order of committal is but an indirect attempt to review by way of certiorari the pertinent decisionoftheAttorney-General. NeitherinEnglandnorinCyprus,aredecisionsoftheAttorneyGeneral subject to judicial review by way of certiorari. The 5 Attorney-General isundertheConstitutiontrusted withpowerto prosecute at his discretion (article 113.2 of the Constitution). Subject to the limits of the power vested in him by the Constitution, he isthe arbiter ofthepublicinterestunderarticle 113.2.The decision of the FullBench inPolice v.Athienitis* (a io majority decision)andthecaselawcitedtherein,doestablishthat inhisdomaintheactionsoftheAttorney-General arenotsubject to judicial control. In Xenophontos v. Republic** it was acknowledgedthatheisnotsubjecttotherevisionaljurisdictionof theCourteither. 15 ProvidedtheAttorney-Generalheedstheproceduralrequisites set down ins.107, Cap. 155,hisaction isnotsubject tojudicial review by way of certiorari. Moreover, s.108 of the Criminal Procedure Law makes the Attorney-General the arbiter of the content of the information. It is specifically provided that the 20 information shallcontaintheoffences whichintheopinionofthe Attorney-General aredisclosedbythedeposition.The formation of such opinion and the reasons for it,cannot be the subjectof reviewby way of-certiorari.The assumption of such jurisdiction would compromise the constitutional independence of the 25 Attorney-General inhisdomain.And beingincompetent for the Courttogobehindtheinformationandinquireintohisreasonsor theircontent, itisbythesame reasoning impermissibletoquery after thefilingof the information the validity of the committal order.TheAssizeCourtcan,ofcourse,asthetrialCourtinevery 30 case, inthe exercise of itsjudicial power, setaside one ormore chargescontainedintheinformation fornoncompliancewiththe proceduralrulesrelevanttotheframing ofcharges,thejoinderof offences and the joinder of offenders. Section 110, Cap. 155, removesany doubt thatcouldbeentertained inthatregard.The 35 Assize Court was not concerned with procedural irregularities apparentonthefaceoftheinformationbutwiththepremiseupon whichtheinformation was founded. *

(1983)2C1~R.194, **(2R.S.C.C.89). 40 1CL.R. Ellinasv. Republic PikisJ. For the reasons earlier indicated, no jurisdiction lies under article155.4oftheConstitutiontoinquireintothepremiseofthe information. Weare alsoinagreement withthe learned President inruling 5 thattheAssizeCourthadnojurisdictiontoreviewthevalidityof the committal order. Ajudicial order can only be reviewed in eitheroftwoways:(a)Bywayofappealwhenarightofappealisbestowedbyit,or (b)bywayofcertiorari. 10 Both jurisdictions vest exclusively in the Supreme Court; appellatejurisdiction andjurisdiction to issue prerogative orders vests exclusively in the Supreme Court invirtue of para. 1and para.4ofarticle 155oftheConstitution,respectively. Section 86 of the Criminal Procedure Law does not confer 15 jurisdiction ontheAssizeCourttorevieweitherthevalidityofan information filed before theAssizeCourtorthecommittalorder preceding it. Its ambit is confined to empowering the Court to throwoutaprosecution«notwithinthereasonablecontemplation oftheaccused.»Theenactmentprovidesinessencethenecessary 20 proceduralsafeguardsfortheprotectionoftherightsvestedinthe accusedbytheprovisionsofarticle12

(5)(a)and(b),entrenchingas a fundamental human right the right of every person accused ofcrimetobeinformed promptly«andindetail,ofthenatureof the grounds of the charge preferred against him» and «tohave 25 adequatetimeandfacilitiesforthepreparationofhisdefence.» Forthereasonsindicatedabove,theappealsweredismissed. KOURRIS,J.: I hadthe opportunityofreadinginadvancethe reasonsforJudgmentdeliveredbyPikis,J.Iaminfullagreement andIhavenothingusefultoadd. 30 Appealsdismissed. 41