On Tuesday, the Criminal Court approved the addition of a new witness to the list of prosecution witnesses in the Central Prison documents case, rejecting the defense’s objection, which had questioned the necessity of adding that particular witness.
In reading the decision on the matter, the court ruled that the prosecution had complied with the requirements for notifying the defense, as provided by law, as it had notified the defense via email dated October 15, 2026, of its intention to call a witness, and in a subsequent email to the defense, it provided the witness’s name and the nature of his testimony.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
As the court noted, pursuant to Article 111 of the Criminal Procedure Law, a person whose name is not included in the indictment may not be summoned by the Prosecution to testify at trial, unless prior written notice has been given to the defendant or his attorney, stating the witness’s name and the substance of his testimony. The law provides, however, for specific exceptions to this requirement.
At the same time, he noted that sufficient time must elapse between the notification and the witness’s summons so as not to take the defense by surprise; in such a case, the defense may request time to prepare. “The defense should not be caught off guard,” he emphasized.
He also added that the process of adding witnesses “must be done sparingly,” noting that the continuous addition of witnesses to fill gaps in the case “is generally undesirable,” particularly in light of the principle of a fair trial. It clarified, however, that the ability to summon additional witnesses is not unrestricted but is subject to the court’s discretion.
In this case, the Criminal Court took into account that it was the common position of both sides that relevant correspondence had taken place beforehand, while Article 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not specify a minimum time period for notifying the defense. “Based on all of the above, the prosecution has complied with the notification requirements,” he added.
Furthermore, he noted that the Prosecution’s motion was filed before the commencement of the proceedings and that the new witness’s testimony concerns evidence allegedly seized from the home of the third defendantand is directly related to the substance of the case.
Regarding the defense’s assertion that the testimony of this particular individual is of a formal nature, the court noted that the legislature explicitly provides, in Article 111(c), for the case of a witness of a formal nature, exempting such a witness from the requirement of prior written notice.
Consequently, it ruled that the possibility of summoning this particular witness does not depend on whether his testimony is formal or substantive.
At the same time, it noted that “there does not appear, at first glance, to be any adverse effect on the defendants.”
“Our discretion must be exercised in favor of granting the Prosecution’s request,” the Criminal Court concluded, ultimately granting the request and authorizing the addition of the new witness’s name to the list of prosecution witnesses.
After the decision was read, the defense counsel for the first defendant requested an adjournment of today’s hearing, with the proceedings scheduled to resume on November 5 at 9:30 a.m.
It should be noted that the defendants in the case are the former Director of the Central Prison, Anna Aristotelous, the former Deputy Director, Athina Dimitriou, five members of the correctional facility, and a former member who is now a police officer.
They face charges relating, among other things, to conspiracy to commit a felony, theft of state property, and abuse of authority, in connection with the removal of documents, plans, and digital data from the prison.
Source: CNA
