|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(V19) 1 CLR 240
1953 April 1
April 22, 1953
[HALLINAN, C.J.,AND ZEKIA, J.]
EVRIPIDES MICHAEL ISKAS OF LINOU,
Appellant,
v.
THE POLICE.,
Respondents.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1942.)
Courts of Justice Law, 1953 s. 30 (4)—Assumption of jurisdiction— Unnecessary to state reason—Accused cannot require trial by a particular judicial officer
When brought before the Additional President of the District Court of Nicosia the accused person elected to be tried summarily under section 6 (4) of the Courts of Justice Law (Cap. 11)* and the Court assumed jurisdiction to try the case summarily. The accused was convicted and appealed.
Held: (1) The accused could not claim to be tried by the particular judicial officer who assumed jurisdiction ; he could be tried by any officer having the powers of a President District Court, Nicosia District Court.
(2) The Court assuming jurisdiction need not record its reason for so doing.
Appeal dismissed.
Appeal by the accused from the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia (Case No. .1541/53).
M. Triantafyllides for the appellant.
Μ. N. Munir, Solicitor-General, for the respondents.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by :
HALLINAN, C.J. : In this case the appellant was charged with having committed grievous harm under section 225 of the Criminal Code and he, under that section, is liable to imprisonment for seven years. When the case came on before the President of the District Court of Nicosia the consent of the Attorney-General was filed under section 20 (4), proviso (d), of the Courts of Justice Law, (Cap. .11) and. the appellant consented to summary trial under that section. He was subsequently tried by the Additional President of the District Court of Nicosia and convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.
Two points have been taken on the hearing of this appeal: first, that the appellant consented to be tried only by the President of the District Court of Nicosia, not by the Additional President, and, secondly, that the President of the District Court before he assumed jurisdiction to try the appellant did not exercise the judicial discretion which is required by section 20 (4).
As regards the first point the matter can be very easily disposed of by saying that, when an accused person is asked whether he consents to be tried summarily, he elects summary trial, he does not elect and should not be allowed to elect to be tried by any particular judicial officer. The submission made for the appellant if adopted would lead to absurd and incongruous results.
As regards the second point, as the Solicitor-General has pointed out, the Court which assumes jurisdiction under section 20 (4) is not obliged to record its' reasons for so doing, and unless it is patent on the face of the record that the discretion has been improperly exercised we must assume that the assumption of jurisdiction was lawful.
In this particular case the Attorney-General, who presumably had seen the papers, had given his consent to a summary trial ; and the event of the case, the sentence of 18 months imposed upon the appellant, shows that the Court was correct in trying the case summarily.
For these reasons I consider that this appeal should be dismissed.
ZEKIA, J.: I agree.