“It is astonishing that neither the defense attorney nor the representative of the prosecution was aware of the existence of the previous interim ruling,” lawyer Simos Angelides told CNA today, commenting on the Court of Appeals’ decision to overturn the conviction of Georgios Christodoulou (“Zavrantona”) in the 15-kilogram cocaine case due to procedural irregularities.

As Mr. Angelides explained, yesterday’s decision by the Court of Appeals does not constitute an acquittal of the defendant, but rather a finding of serious procedural irregularities that led to the invalidity of the proceedings and an order for a retrial of the case by a new panel of the Criminal Court.

Georgios Christodoulou, known as “Zavrantonas,” was convicted on December 12, 2022, of the offenses of possession and possession with intent to supply a Class A controlled substance, involving 15 kilograms and 16.4 grams of cocaine. At the same time, he had been acquitted of the charges of conspiracy and supplying drugs to a third party, while he had been sentenced to 22 years in prison.

The appeal cited a total of 21 grounds regarding the conviction and two regarding the sentence. However, the Court of Appeals examined only the second ground of appeal, ruling that if it were upheld, there would be no reason to examine any other issue.

According to Mr. Angelidis, this specific ground for appeal concerned whether the Criminal Court that issued the conviction was the appellant’s “natural judge.”

As he noted, the case was initially heard by a specific panel of the Criminal Court, which on December 23, 2020, issued an interim ruling on a defense motion to stay the proceedings on grounds of abuse of process.

The motion concerned the circumstances of the defendant’s arrest and detention in the occupied territories and the manner in which he was handed over to the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus.

“The Criminal Court, in that composition, ruled that the issue could not be examined at that stage of the proceedings, since the facts were not generally accepted and would have to be examined in the context of the trial,” he noted.

As he explained, a series of postponements followed, and finally, on September 16, 2021, the composition of the Criminal Court changed substantially. It was this new composition that proceeded with the hearing and ultimately issued the conviction.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the change in the composition of the court after the issuance of an interim decision that affected the course of the case violated the principle of the “natural judge.”

“The improper composition of the court violates the principle of the natural judge and consequently renders the proceedings null and void, a defect that cannot be remedied by any conduct or omission on the part of the parties,” stated Mr. Angelidis.

It should be noted that the Court of Appeals ultimately overturned the sentences imposed regarding counts 2 and 3 and ordered a new trial before a new Criminal Court with a new composition, while requesting that the case be scheduled within 15 days, while the appellant remains in custody.

According to Mr. Angelidis, “it is surprising and worth noting that the court found that both the appellant’s attorney and the respondent’s attorney were unaware of the existence of the previous interim decision. Thus, neither one nor the other was aware, because neither was the original attorney, nor had the other from the Legal Service handled the matter from the outset. This became apparent subsequently.”

Responsibilities of the Legal Service

When asked whether the Legal Service bears any responsibility, Mr. Angelidis stated that “In principle, the improper composition of the Criminal Court is not anyone’s fault. Those handling the proceedings as the Prosecution should have known that there was an interim ruling that affected the substance of the case, and from the moment that, for whatever reason, the composition of the Criminal Court needed to be changed, they were obligated to request that the proceedings be halted and to re-file a new case before the new Criminal Court with the new composition. They failed to do so, and as a result, we ended up with this miscarriage of justice, which was inevitable given that it was indeed a matter of jurisdiction; it was an issue that affected natural justice and the right of every individual to have their case heard by the natural judge.”

“The problem lies in why this interim decision was not included in the Legal Service’s file, so that the next lawyer who took over the case could be aware of its existence and take corrective measures, and these are the issues that the Legal Service itself must evaluate, especially regarding the file or how one colleague hands over a specific file to another colleague and what the file is supposed to contain. “It is inconceivable, at least based on what has been leaked, that there could be a claim that the interim decision, which affects the future course of a very serious case, was not included in the file,” he added.

Mr. Angelidis clarified that the issue does not concern the police’s responsibilities, but exclusively the handling by the Legal Service.

“New problem” in the proceedings

Mr. Angelides also referred to the difficulties that may arise during the retrial, particularly regarding a key prosecution witness who was initially a defendant and has since been acquitted.

“The question is whether this leverage from the Republic still exists, so that the witness will appear and give his new testimony before the court. It is up to the Prosecution to take the necessary steps to ensure that the witness at least appears before the court. Beyond that, his testimony is something that will be evaluated once it is presented to the court,” he said.

Source: CNA