The Supreme Court appeal filed by a suspect against a three-day detention order has been rejected, with the court confirming that his continued detention was necessary for police investigations to proceed without obstruction.
The suspect is being investigated for a number of serious offences, including written threats to kill, distribution of pornographic or sexual material, harassment, stalking, breach of a court order and psychological abuse against a former partner.
Allegations involving former partner
According to the facts recorded in the court decision, the suspect and the complainant were in a relationship from August 2024 until February 2025.
Following attempts to reconcile, the relationship ended permanently, while the woman had already filed previous complaints against him. As a result of one of those complaints, a court order was issued on 30 May 2026 banning him from approaching her within 100 metres or contacting her in any way.
The latest complaint relates to incidents allegedly occurring in the early hours of 8 July 2026.
The woman reported that after returning home from a night out, she received threatening and abusive messages from two different mobile phone numbers. She alleged that the sender threatened to “finish her” and “destroy her” if she reported him.
She told police she identified the suspect based on his writing style, the content of the messages, photographs sent to her, and his voice during a phone conversation.
Court cites ongoing investigations
In his appeal, the suspect did not dispute that there was reasonable suspicion against him but argued that his detention should not continue, claiming that much of the investigative work could have been completed before his arrest.
However, the Court of Appeal found that the first-instance judge had correctly applied the principles governing detention orders and had sufficiently explained why the detention was necessary.
The court noted that important investigative steps remained outstanding, including searches of the suspect’s home and other premises for mobile phones, computers and other digital devices that may have been used to send threatening messages or distribute sexual material.
Risk of evidence destruction and witness interference
Authorities were also expected to investigate possible applications or evidence linked to a GPS tracking device, which the complainant alleged had been placed on her vehicle by the suspect.
The court found there was a real risk that evidence could be destroyed if the suspect remained free.
It also noted that investigators still needed to examine claims that the suspect was accompanied by friends on the night of the alleged incidents, requiring statements from potential witnesses.
The Court of Appeal agreed that there was a justified concern that witnesses could be influenced if the suspect was released.
Detention order remains in force
The Supreme Court stressed that the role of the appeals court is not to reconsider the entire case or replace the first-instance court’s judgment with its own, but to examine whether judicial discretion was exercised correctly and in line with legal principles.
The court concluded that no error had been identified in the original decision, either regarding the necessity or the duration of the detention.
It therefore upheld the three-day detention order and rejected the suspect’s appeal.
Also read: Defence challenges evidence in Xylofagou children’s deaths case
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
