An unprecedented case in judicial proceedings unfolded at Limassol District Court when a judge refused to comply with orders from the court president to modify the findings of two death inquests.
The case gained particular significance as these orders were issued one month after the same judge, Doria Varoshiotou, had delivered findings in a third inquest into the death of Thanasis Nicolaou, in which she determined for the first time that his death resulted from criminal activity by strangulation.
According to two identical decisions, Judge Varoshiotou called both parties involved in the two inquests before her and, after hearing their arguments, decided: “With full respect to the President of the District Court, I find that the order given to me cannot be executed”.
The two inquest findings at the centre of the dispute were issued in April 2024 by Judge Varoshiotou. One case involved a death resulting from a traffic accident and the other a death caused by a fall from a two-metre scaffold during work.
In both cases, the families of the deceased had stated they did not wish to participate in the inquests and would be informed of the findings afterwards, as occurs in most inquest cases where the Attorney General and family agree on the cause of death.
The dispute
According to the decisions, on June 12, 2024, the President of the Limassol District Court called Judge Varoshiotou to his office to express his disagreement with the writing style and conclusions of the findings she had issued in the above inquests.
He informed her that if she did not modify these findings, he would not sign the customary letter typically signed by the president after an inquest is completed.
The following day, on June 13, 2024, Judge Varoshiotou submitted a written memorandum to the Court President outlining her position on the matter. As the President had handed her the files of the two cases with instructions to modify the findings, she decided to address the issue judicially.
According to the decisions, Judge Varoshiotou summoned representatives of the Attorney General and the families of the deceased to express their views on whether the Constitution and the Coroners Law (Cap. 153) grant authority to a coroner to modify or alter findings after they have been issued, particularly at the instruction of a District Court President.
She informed the President of this intention in a written memorandum dated June 17, 2024, also suggesting that if he wished, he could record his verbal order in the case file. The President did not file any such record.
Legal position
When questioned by the court, the representative of the Attorney General expressed the view that reversal of inquest findings can only occur through the filing of a prerogative writ of certiorari.
Referring to Articles 28 and 30 of the Coroners Law (Cap. 153), she stated that any authority held by the District Court President must be exercised following an application submitted by the Attorney General. In both cases, no such request had been made.
In her substantiated decision, Judge Varoshiotou emphasised that any powers granted to the District Court President by the Coroners Law must be exercised judicially, following proper judicial procedure and respecting the fundamental principles of fair trial as guaranteed by Article 30 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR.
She stated that when the President decides to exercise the powers granted by Article 28(3), he must notify the Attorney General. Then, under Article 30(1), for the President to implement his decision, a request from the Attorney General must precede this action.
Independence of judicial function
Judge Varoshiotou noted that according to the law, neither the President nor anyone else has the authority to interfere with the work of a coroner to alter findings.
She stated that a different interpretation would contradict the basic principle, established by law and the Constitution, that review of lower court decisions is conducted by higher courts.
She pointed out that District Court judges, regardless of jurisdiction and position (President, Senior, District), are of equal rank. She also stated that the exclusive jurisdiction to review inquest findings rests with the Supreme Court through an application for a prerogative writ of certiorari.
The judge emphasised that the Coroners Law (Cap. 153) was enacted on 20 May 1953 and is among the laws preserved with the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus.
She noted that the provisions of Articles 28 and 30 of the Coroners Law, established before the Constitution came into effect, must be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with constitutional provisions.
According to her decision, a coroner becomes functus officio after issuing findings, meaning they have no further jurisdiction in the case and cannot modify or change their findings.
She concluded: “In view of the above and with full respect to the President of the District Court, I find that the order given to me cannot be executed”.
Strange coincidences
All these events occurred one month after the same judge, acting as coroner, had issued findings in the death of Thanasis Nicolaou. It is recalled that in this case too, the court president had delayed signing the inquest findings.
Additionally, after the Nikolaou findings were issued, a decision was announced to transfer Judge Varoshiotou from criminal to civil jurisdiction.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court sat as a full bench and gave Stavrianos permission to file an application to nullify the findings, despite not being an interested party in the proceedings.
The Supreme Court then issued its decision, which did not invalidate the findings for reasons of “public interest,” but was characterised by a critical tone and attacked the judge for alleged “errors” in her findings.
The Supreme Court also clarified in its decision that Stavrianos could not be criminally prosecuted based on the findings, despite the fact that the coroner herself had noted throughout the inquest and in her findings that she had no jurisdiction to assign criminal responsibility but only to determine the cause of death.
