The Supreme Court has dismissed in full the appeal of a driver convicted by the Nicosia District Court for causing death through a reckless, careless or dangerous act or behaviour, upholding both the conviction and the 12-month prison sentence imposed on him.
During the appeal hearing, the driver withdrew the grounds relating to his sentence, and the Court of Appeal examined only the eight arguments challenging his conviction.
Dangerous overtaking led to fatal collision
The case concerned a fatal road crash that occurred when the defendant was driving on a two-way road with one lane in each direction.
According to the findings of the first-instance court, the driver decided to overtake a truck travelling ahead of him, moving into the opposite lane.
The overtaking manoeuvre took place at a point where there was a clearly visible continuous white dividing line, on an uphill section of road, without street lighting and in complete darkness.
Before he could complete the manoeuvre and return to his lane, he collided head-on with a vehicle travelling legally in the opposite direction. The driver of that vehicle died as a result of the severe impact.
Court rejects defence arguments
The defence argued that the driver had started overtaking at a point where a broken line existed, meaning the initial manoeuvre was legal.
It also claimed that the victim had been driving at excessive speed and was under the influence of alcohol and medication, arguing that the crash would not have occurred if the victim had been travelling within the speed limit.
The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, ruling that even if the overtaking began at a point with a broken line, the driver had a duty to ensure he could safely complete the manoeuvre before entering a section where overtaking was prohibited.
The court found that the driver remained in the opposite lane until reaching the continuous dividing line without ensuring he could return to his lane in time.
Conditions made manoeuvre objectively dangerous
The court placed particular importance on the road conditions at the time of the crash.
It found that the uphill section significantly limited the driver’s visibility beyond the crest of the road. Combined with the lack of street lighting and nighttime conditions, the driver could not have detected an approaching vehicle in sufficient time.
The Supreme Court concluded that attempting the overtaking manoeuvre under those circumstances was objectively dangerous and was the active and substantial cause of the fatal road crash.
Appeal arguments on fair trial rejected
The driver also argued that he had been denied a fair trial because he was forced to represent himself while cross-examining the main police investigator, despite claiming serious health problems.
The Supreme Court rejected the claim, noting that the medical certificates cited had not been submitted as accepted evidence and that court records showed the driver had chosen to represent himself without requesting an adjournment to find a lawyer.
The court also found that the first-instance judge had given him time to prepare and had assisted him during the process while maintaining judicial neutrality.
Other appeal arguments concerning the evidence, witness testimony, the accident reconstruction and expert testimony were also rejected.
The Supreme Court concluded that the lower court had properly assessed all evidence and had fully justified its decision.
The conviction and the 12-month prison sentence remain in force.
Also read: Printing business destroyed in early morning fire in Agios Dometios
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
