Cyprus-Forum.com

[YFred]

Former ECHR judge says cops’ acquittal ‘stupid and absurd’
By Stefanos Evripidou

THE REASONING of the criminal court in the recent acquittal of ten police officers charged with beating two students was “stupid and absurd”, said former European judge Loucis Loucaides yesterday.

The former judge of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) yesterday listed a host of weaknesses in the court’s judgement, suggesting judges in Cyprus were not clued up either on the law of evidence or on European case law.

In its 160-page judgement, the criminal court singled out the media for creating its own trial of the accused, referring specifically to the “unfavourable publicity from the start of the criminal investigation until the trial of the case”.

The court examined 361 published articles on the case, finding that there had been “a wide-scale and long-term persecution of the accused by the media”

The media coverage “constituted serious interference in the course of justice and pre-empted the outcome of the trial. At the same time it constitutes usurpation of the judicial authority and contempt of court,” said the court.

Loucaides told the Sunday Mail yesterday that if the media really had influenced opinion then the judges would not have acquitted the ten officers.

“From the moment the court acquitted the accused, it means they were not influenced by the media. Finished. Whether the media acted irregularly or not is of no relevance,” he said.

The former deputy Attorney-general further noted that the question of publicity should only arise following a conviction, where the convicted takes a complaint of an unfair trial to the Supreme Court.

“The media influence is irrelevant to the proceedings, yet the court went out of its way to touch on the matter. ECHR case law is clear on this. In the cases of professional judges (with no jury), the issue of media influence does not arise,” said Loucaides.

“What about the much publicised case of the Austrian who raped his daughter, should they have acquitted him too?” he asked.

The former judge referred to another ECHR case on the right of the media to inform the public on a matter of public interest.

The English High Court tried to stop the Sunday Times from reporting on the thalidomide drug case which caused pregnant women to give birth to babies with no arms and legs. The ECHR said no, it was a matter of public interest, and it was the public’s right to hear about it.

Loucaides asked why the court went of its way to speak against the media using such strong language, but did not offer the same intensity on the treatment of the complainants, which the court accepted were “subject to humiliating treatment”.

“It was such a horrible act, contrary to human rights and democracy, and yet they said so many things against the media.”

The former judge highlighted that it was the media’s publication of the video which led the police to drop their charges of assault against the two boys and for proceedings to start against the officers.

On the credibility of the video evidence, Loucaides suggested the court’s thinking was backwards.

“The complainant identified the accused on the video. This should have been taken into account and strengthened the credibility of the video. But the judges did it in reverse, saying the video is not reliable and so the complainants’ identification is also not reliable,” he said.

Regarding the court’s argument that the complainants’ identification of the accused lacked the necessary spontaneity and objectivity, he said: “Can you even speak about objectivity of a complainant, of course they’re subjective and that’s alright.

“How do you expect spontaneity? After so many months, should they shout ‘Ah, here they are’. It’s absurd, it’s stupid.”

Loucaides said he understood why the video-maker did not wish to come forward and testify against the police, adding that he also felt the tight-nit solidarity of the force during his time in the Legal Service.

“It is a reasonable fear against a police force which has such solidarity. They never go against each other. It’s a small society, which makes individuals powerless against police. I would not go against the police.”

Asked to comment on the court’s decision, he said: “There is something wrong with the way judges approached the evidence. They may be not sufficiently trained. And they do not take criticism either.

“This judgement will reaffirm the belief of many that the police can not be punished. There are several cases proving this,” he said.

Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009

There is a light at the end of the tunnel. ohps its not a light its a train. Out of the way.

[YFred]

Are we to assume that a former GC ECHR judge makes a comment and not one of our heroic GC fighters are able to comment? Have you all swallowed your tongues?
I would expect at least Piratis to mention 1571. What’s going on?

[CopperLine]

YFred,
No mention by Piratis of 30% or even 17% - there really is something amiss

[Piratis]

How is this related with the Cyprus problem?

[YFred]

YFred,
No mention by Piratis of 30% or even 17% - there really is something amiss

Give him time, he in adjusting the percentages on his calculator.

[Viewpoint]

This is the justice we would face in a GC state run by GCs, if they can do this against their own imagine what they will do to TCs???? The case will not even reach court.

[YFred]

This is the justice we would face in a GC state run by GCs, if they can do this against their own imagine what they will do to TCs???? The case will not even reach court.

Yep, which is why the Gurantee, and the federal system is so important.

[Viewpoint]

This is the justice we would face in a GC state run by GCs, if they can do this against their own imagine what they will do to TCs???? The case will not even reach court.

Yep, which is why the Gurantee, and the federal system is so important.

Has to be a system of neutrality as GC judges and Police will just dismiss any TC claims as being unfounded.

[YFred]

This is the justice we would face in a GC state run by GCs, if they can do this against their own imagine what they will do to TCs???? The case will not even reach court.

Yep, which is why the Gurantee, and the federal system is so important.

Has to be a system of neutrality as GC judges and Police will just dismiss any TC claims as being unfounded.

I would go further, and ask for each citizen to be able to take their case to which ever court they choose no m atter where the event has occured. Now that will gurantee a fair hearing. Perhaps mixed with the appeal court to be the choice of the appealent? I would leave all the detail to Talat. He really is on the ball in these negotiations.