|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1987) 2 CLR 266
1987 April 14
[TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., LORIS, STYLIANIDES, JJ.]
CHRISTAKIS MICHAELIDES,
Appellant,
v.
THE REPUBLIC,
Respondent.
(Application in Criminal Appeal No. 4764).
Appeal — Practice — Reopening of hearing after judgment has been reserved — The relevant inherent power of the Court.
By letter dated 26.3.87 one of the main prosecution witnesses informed the Attorney-General that he was not 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 was the appellant.
As a result counsel for the respondent asked for the reopening of the hearing of this case!
Held, that in the circumstances of this case this Court will exercise its inherent power and order the reopening of the hearing of this appeal.
Order accordingly.
Cases referred to:
Koliandrisv. The Republic (1965) 2 C.L.R. 72.
Application.
Application by Counsel for the respondent for the reopening of the hearing of this case after judgment had been reserved.
Chr. Pourgourides with G. Tsikkos, for the appellant.
R. Gavrielides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
TRIANTAFYLJJDES P. read the following decision of the Court. We reserved judpnent in this case on 3 April 1987 after a lengthy hearing.
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, on 26 March 1987, by Demetris Palaris, who was one of the main prosecution witnesses at the trial of the appellant.
Such letter was received by the Attorney-General on 4 April 1987 and by means of it the said witness stated that he was not 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 was the appellant.
As a result of this letter counsel 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 1987.
Then, by his written communication to the Court on 6 April 1987 counsel for the respondent asked for the reopening of the hearing of this case.
Today we have heard both counsel regarding the power of the Court to reopen the hearing of a criminal appeal after judgment has been reserved.
No authority was cited to us but we have been referred to the inherent powers of the Court which are to be exercised in the interests of justice.
We have ourselves traced the case of Koliandris v. The Republic, (1965) 2 C.L.R. 72, in which, as it appears from its report (at p. 80) the Supreme Court, on its own initiative, decided to hear further evidence, under section 25(3) of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (Law 14/60), by recalling an expert witness.
It does not appear clearly from the report of the Koliandris case whether the hearing was reopened after judgment had been reserved, but from the file of the case, which we have traced, it is obvious that after the hearing took place on 15 June 1965, judgment was reserved and the hearing was reopened for further evidence on 17 June 1965; and judgment was finally given on 22 June 1965. There does, therefore, seem to exist a precedent for the reopening of the hearing of a criminal appeal after judgment has been reserved.
We have decided, in the light of the material before us and in the interests of justice, to exercise our inherent powers and reopen the hearing of this appeal and we shall, first, hear counsel as to what course we should take in view of the developments which led to the reopening of the hearing.
If either counsel wishes to recall any witness or to call any further evidence an application should be filed by him in the usual course under section 25 of Law 14/60, for leave enabling him to do so.
At this moment we are not deciding whether or not we are going to grant such leave.
Order accordingly.