Court of Appeal upholds 12-year prison sentence
Cyprus’s Court of Appeal has unanimously rejected an appeal filed by a man convicted of multiple offences of sexual abuse against a minor in a Limassol child abuse case, fully upholding both the factual findings and legal reasoning of the Limassol Assize Court.
The appellant had been sentenced to a total of 12 years in prison after being found guilty of a series of sexual offences committed against a minor who, according to the trial court’s findings, was under his trust, authority, and influence.
Abuse spanned multiple periods, including before age 13
The Assize Court had determined that the abuse occurred over different time periods, including when the victim was under the age of 13. Concurrent prison sentences were imposed, amounting to a total of 12 years’ imprisonment.
In his appeal, the convicted man raised three main arguments: that the trial court wrongly accepted the testimony of the complainant as credible, that the police investigation was inadequate and violated his right to a fair trial, and that the victim’s testimony was allegedly influenced or guided by third parties.
Appeal court defers to trial court on credibility
Examining in detail the first and third grounds of appeal, the Court of Appeal reiterated established case law that the assessment of witness credibility lies primarily with the trial court, which has the advantage of direct contact with witnesses. Appellate intervention, it stressed, is justified only where findings contradict common sense or are unsupported by the evidence.
The court ruled that variations between the victim’s initial statements and her testimony in court did not amount to contradictions capable of undermining her credibility. It took into account expert evidence explaining why child victims of sexual abuse often delay or gradually disclose the full extent of events, as well as the particularly conservative and closed social environment in which the victim was raised.
The court found that the delayed and incomplete initial disclosure was understandable and did not weaken the core reliability of the victim’s account.
Claims of coaching and investigative failures dismissed
The Court of Appeal also rejected claims that the victim’s testimony had been coached by family members, noting that such allegations were neither substantiated nor meaningfully raised during cross-examination. No evidence emerged suggesting fabrication or manipulation of testimony.
Regarding the second ground of appeal, which concerned the absence of DNA collection and analysis, the court agreed with the Assize Court that, given the circumstances and the time that had elapsed, such testing was not a reasonable investigative line and would not have materially clarified the case.
The court emphasised that the right to a fair trial must be assessed as a whole and concluded that the appellant had not been deprived of any substantive defence rights.
Conviction and sentences confirmed
Based on these findings, the Court of Appeal ruled that all grounds of appeal were unfounded and proceeded to dismiss the appeal in its entirety, confirming both the conviction and the sentences imposed at first instance.
Background of the case
According to the case history as established by the Assize Court and reviewed by the Court of Appeal, the minor came into contact with the accused at a young age in the context of the family’s daily life, on the balcony of the home where they lived in Limassol.
The relationship was not incidental but developed through gradual and systematic contact, during which the accused exploited his role to build a relationship of trust and dependency with the child.
The court accepted that the victim was in a vulnerable position due to her age and her family and social circumstances. She was raised in a highly conservative environment, with limited access to education and significant difficulties in expressing and describing complex experiences.
The case came to light following a specific incident that prompted the involvement of the family and subsequently the authorities. A police complaint was filed, followed by forensic and psychological evaluations, which indicated a long-term pattern of abuse rather than an isolated incident.
The Assize Court concluded that the abuse was systematic and repeated, and that the accused acted by exploiting his position of influence over a child who was unable to react or report the incidents in a timely manner. The Court of Appeal found that these conclusions were sufficiently supported by the evidence and saw no reason to overturn them.
Also read: Abuse of a turtle in Paphos sparks outrage after beach incident
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
