THE JUSTICE system has become more tolerant of the use of technology as evidence, the President of the Bar Association said yesterday.
Doros Ioannides was commenting on Monday’s Supreme Court decision to annul the Nicosia Assize Court acquittal of 10 officers in the 2005 beating of two students and to order the retrial of eight of the officers.
Ioannides said the Supreme Court had essentially based its decision on three points including the authenticity of the videotape, the identification of the officers depicted on the video recording by their superior officers and the Assize Court’s failure to indicate how the accused’s defence had been unfavourably affected by the case’s publicity.
He said the Supreme Court had ruled that both the videotape and the identification made by the senior officers should have been taken into account by the Assize Court.
Ioannides also said publicity in no way affected a defendant’s fair trial.
“Judges need to bestow justice. You can argue [publications] affect witnesses but I say that because judges are professionals they must have the ability to separate everything which is why they are on the bench,” said Ioannides.
The eight officers will be now be retried before a new panel of judges. The panel is currently trying the Helios air disaster as well as several high profile murder cases including that of media boss Andis Hadjicostis which is scheduled to start in June.
According to the Supreme Court decision it had been wrong of the Assize Court to ignore a videotape depicting the December 20, 2005 beating of Marcos Papaegeorgiou and his friend Yiannis Nicolaou by plainclothes officers.
Papageorgiou and Nicolaou were repeatedly beaten by five officers including four MMAD (Mobile Rapid Reaction Unit) officers and one female constable after they were pulled over for a routine ID check. The youths were 27 at the time of the assault.
The eight officers to be retried face varying charges from torture, illegal handling of civilians, causing grievous bodily harm, attack that led to grievous bodily harm, neglecting to stop an offence from taking place, improper use of authority, and common assault.
