A Nicosia-based gastroenterologist has had his appeal definitively rejected by the Court of Appeal after being sentenced to four months in prison for four counts of indecent assault against a young female patient. The court upheld the original ruling, finding no legal or factual error in the conviction and confirming that the sentence imposed was fair and lawful.
The incident occurred on 28 August 2020, at a private clinic in Nicosia. The complainant, a young woman at the time, had gone to the hospital for a scheduled colonoscopy. She was given intravenous sedation prior to the procedure. According to her testimony, after the colonoscopy ended and while she was in recovery with reduced consciousness, the doctor approached her, leaned over, and kissed her on the mouth. She pushed him away and asked him to leave, but he allegedly proceeded to kiss her a second and third time. Later, after she had moved to a waiting chair near the exit of the endoscopy unit, the doctor reportedly approached her again and kissed her a fourth time while she was standing.
Still in shock, the woman immediately messaged her partner, describing what had happened: “He kissed me… I’m still dizzy from the sedation, I can’t believe it…”
The lower court accepted the complainant’s testimony, describing it as honest, consistent, and coherent. Particular weight was given to the fact that she reported the incident immediately, sending messages to her partner just minutes after it occurred, while still at the hospital. These messages were considered part of the incident itself — res gestae — spontaneous statements made immediately after an event that reflect the speaker’s true state of mind.
The doctor’s defence — that the woman had kissed him first and then fabricated the messages to provoke jealousy in her partner — was dismissed as baseless and implausible. As the judge noted: “No woman, having just regained consciousness after a medical procedure, invents such a story in such a convincing and spontaneous manner simply to make her partner jealous.”
In his appeal, the doctor raised eleven grounds, including claims that he had no intent (mens rea), that the verdict was based on assumptions, that the testimony was wrongly assessed, that the police mishandled the investigation, and that the prosecution was biased against him. The Appeal Court rejected each argument, ruling that the complainant’s testimony was properly and lawfully assessed, and that the judge had every right to find her credible. His defence was found to be weak and internally contradictory.
The court also noted that the complainant’s lack of loud or physical resistance during the incidents did not invalidate the indecent nature of the assaults or weaken her account. She was in a state of confusion and dizziness due to sedation, which explained her subdued reaction. Furthermore, she immediately contacted her partner, sought psychological support the next day, and filed a formal complaint within days.
The Appeal Court also rejected the claim that the prosecution had acted abusively, affirming that the proceedings were fair, the accused had full rights to a defence, and there was no evidence of prejudice.
At the same time, the court dismissed a separate appeal filed by the prosecution, which had sought a harsher sentence. Although the court acknowledged the seriousness of the doctor’s actions and recognised the abuse of power over a vulnerable person, it concluded that the four-month prison sentence- to be served concurrently across all charges- fell within the trial court’s discretion and did not warrant intervention.
Also read: Ammochostos nurse accused of indecent assault had prior arrest
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel.
