Section 89: Personal grounds versus offence-nature grounds

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 7086/2559 (2016)

   A ground in the nature of the case under Section 89 applies to all offenders in the same act, so the Supreme Court may extend an acquittal or non-punishment to a co-defendant who did not appeal.

   The Supreme Court found the point in favour of the appealing defendants was a ground in the nature of the case, and under Section 89 it extended the result to the co-defendant who had not filed an appeal, so that defendant also was not punished.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 8701/2547 (2004)

   Because grounds in the nature of the case under Section 89 apply to every offender in the same act, the court's power to correct the judgment reaches a co-defendant who did not appeal.

   The issues in the case were treated as grounds in the nature of the case under Section 89, which apply to all co-offenders, so the Supreme Court exercised its power to extend the corrected judgment to the co-defendant who had not appealed.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 997/2544 (2001)

   Where the nature of the offence and circumstances form a ground in the nature of the case under Section 89, the court may extend a favourable disposition, such as a suspended sentence, to a co-defendant who did not appeal.

   Treating the nature of the offence as a ground in the nature of the case, the Supreme Court extended a suspension of the imprisonment sentence to the co-defendant who had not appealed, in line with Section 89.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.