|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(V15) 1 CLR 101
1937 October 2
[STRONGE, C.J., AND THOMAS, J.]
POLICE
v.
PAUL CSAPO.
(Criminal Application No. 31/37.)
Cyprus Criminal Code, Section 162 Charge of "publicly" committing an Act of indecency under a Section prohibiting the committing of Acts of Indecency in a "Public Place"- Requirements of Clause 82 of the C.C.J.O., 1927, in regard to Form of Charge for an Offence committed in a Public Place.
The appellant was charged on a summons which stated that he "on or about the 22nd August, 1937, at Nicosia did publicly commit an act of indecency". The charge was laid under section 162 of the Cyprus Criminal Code, 1928, which prohibits the committing of any act of indecency in a public place. The evidence against him was to the effect that, as he was at his window or on the balcony of the house, he wilfully exposed himself to some children passing by. He was convicted of the charge as laid, and appealed by way of an application for the statement of a case under section 23 of the Courts of Justice Law, 1935.
(Nicosia Criminal Case No. 3276/37).
H. Ioannides for appellant:-
The charge as laid does not state any offence; for section 162 of the Code says the indecent act must be committed in a public place, and section 5 distinguishes between public place and publicly. In this case the appellant was in private premises. Further, the summons should, pursuant to clause 82 of the C.C.J.O., 1927, specify the public place by name and the particular act of indecency complained of.
S. Pavlides, Crown-Counsel, for respondent:
I agree that the public place should be specified in the summons and do not support the form in which the charge was framed in this case. Section 162 provides for indecency in a public place. A charge stating that the indecency was committed publicly discloses no offence. The corresponding provisions of the Palestine Criminal Code (section 160 of Ordinance 74 of 1936) led support to the appellant's case.
The judgment of the Supreme Court decided-
(1) That no offence had been charged in the summons;
(2) That the evidence had only established indecent exposure "publicly" and not "in a public place"; and
(3) That the particular "public place" should, by reason of clause 82 of the C.C.J.O., 1927, be specified in the summons.
Appeal allowed: Conviction set aside.