The Court of Appeal has fully dismissed the appeal of a man convicted of multiple serious sexual offences against a minor. It confirmed that the lengthy prison sentences imposed by the Nicosia Criminal Court were severe but fully justified and aligned with established case law.
Convictions for multiple sexual offences
A full trial found the appellant guilty on 17 counts involving the sexual abuse and exploitation of a child, as well as offences linked to child sexual abuse material.
Most incidents occurred when the victim, born in 2006, was under 13 and apprenticing at the convicted man’s barbershop. The trial court found that the accused exploited the child’s age and dependency, orchestrating and directing participation in serious sexual acts, some of which he recorded.
The court also convicted him of possessing and distributing child sexual abuse material and exposing the minor to inappropriate content.
Prison terms remain strict
The court imposed ten-year concurrent sentences for some charges and twelve-year concurrent sentences for others.
In his appeal, the convicted man claimed the sentences were excessive, arguing that he played a limited role and cooperated with authorities. The Court of Appeal firmly rejected these claims.
Court highlights crime severity
The court stressed that case law treats child sexual abuse as particularly heinous due to the lasting psychological harm inflicted on victims. It noted that the law allows for life imprisonment in such cases, highlighting the offences’ gravity. The sentences in this case did not exceed proportional limits.
The court also rejected the “limited involvement” argument, noting that the appellant orchestrated the crimes for personal gain, exploiting the minor’s vulnerability and manipulating other individuals involved.
No meaningful cooperation with authorities
The Court of Appeal found that the appellant did not provide significant help to authorities. Contradictory statements during questioning and later behaviour showed a lack of remorse and attempts to influence witnesses.
The court emphasized that the trial court holds primary responsibility for sentencing and that appellate intervention occurs only in cases of clear error or disproportionate penalties. Here, the trial court considered all aggravating and mitigating factors correctly.
Appeal rejected
The Court of Appeal concluded that the ten- and twelve-year prison sentences, while strict, reflected the seriousness and nature of the offences. It rejected both grounds of appeal and fully upheld the trial court’s decision.
Also read: Paralimni rape appeal rejected by Court of Appeal
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
