It was not possible to present the first witnesses at the start of the hearing in the naturalization case related to the Al Jazeera documentary, with the court granting a new request by the Prosecuting Authority for a few days' postponement. The proceedings are set to continue on January 27 and 29 at 9:30am.
The President of the Criminal Court, Nikolas Georgiadis, said that "we are particularly troubled by how the process has developed today", noting that earlier the court had rejected a request for an adjournment by the Prosecuting Authority, for reasons related to issues of categories 4 and 5 and the witnesses who would testify for them. The representative of the Prosecuting Authority "told us that despite the efforts she has made there is an objective difficulty in the witnesses who could testify first in the case". After this development, the Accusing Authority had reported to the court an objective impossibility to start the case in the proper way and, as the advocates did not object to the request for a few days' postponement, this was approved by the court.
The representative of the Accusing Authority, Haris Karaolidou, said that in the time she was given during the interruption of the proceedings, she made several efforts to be able to present testimony before the court.
The intention of the Prosecution, he said, was to begin the present proceedings by presenting evidence. He referred to a series of witnesses who had been attempted to come. The sergeant who was to testify for the evidence was unable to attend. It was possible for another police sergeant to be present, but he was unable to give evidence as he had handled a number of evidence in the case. In addition, another witness was called to appear, from whom a response was still pending, while another police sergeant, who was not on duty, had left Larnaca and was on his way.
"However, with these developments, bearing in mind that I had only been informed in relation to the colleagues of defendants 2 and 3 that they would not object to the request and bearing in mind that the Prosecuting Authority never submitted a request for an adjournment in the present context case, I considered that for the reasons I mentioned, which only serve the public interest as well as the time of the court and the rights of the accused, I considered that the request (for an adjournment) could be accepted", she said, adding that "I am forced to re-submit a request for a short postponement of 3-4 days for the same reasons I mentioned and so that the process does not start in an unorthodox way for the Prosecuting Authority".
In this regard, the President of the court said that "it would have been better if the witnesses had been summoned. It was wrong to assume that because the colleagues had no objection that the court would also grant the request. Adjournment is a matter of discretion of the court, and an exceptional measure."
“We understand that with this court's heavy schedule it may appear that time will not be provided or that the case will be adjourned due to a backlog. This should not be taken for granted as our duty is to adjudicate cases in a short time. It is both a right of the accused and a judicial obligation," he noted.
The court finally approved the request for postponement and the next hearings were set for 27/1 and 29/1 at 9.30am.
Source: KYPE
Discussion about this post