The Appeal Court upheld a man’s conviction for sexually exploiting a minor, dismissing the defense’s sole appeal ground in full.
The case involves repeated incidents over time when the complainant was a child in a highly dysfunctional family environment.
The trial court found him guilty of one count of child sexual exploitation and three counts of indecent assault. It imposed a three-and-a-half-year prison sentence solely for the primary offense, as the other acts fell within the same factual framework.
Incidents occurred at different times between 2007 and 2010, when the complainant was very young. She testified that the defendant exploited his close family ties and frequent alone time with her, committing acts that grossly violated her physical and mental integrity. Her accounts described repeated inappropriate behavior, culminating in one particularly grave incident the court deemed the most serious.
The complainant testified via pre-recorded video at age 16, accepted as primary evidence under child protection laws. The court ruled her delayed disclosure did not undermine credibility, considering her age at the time and the psychological/family conditions she endured.
Troubled family background enabled abuse
The court highlighted the family context. The complainant’s Egyptian-born mother arrived in Cyprus in 1999 with her husband. In early 2004, she met the married father-of-two defendant; families socialized often.
In 2004, her husband suffered an accident causing severe health issues. The defendant visited daily, picked up the complainant from nursery almost every day, took her home, and stayed until the mother returned from work.
In 2007, the husband entered an institution; the mother moved in with her sister. Problems escalated as the defendant pursued her romantically despite her platonic stance. She suffered depression and took sedatives. One night, after pressure, they had sex; she regretted it immediately, but he persisted despite her pleas to end contact.
In 2008, she hosted him for about two months after his wife evicted him; he refused to leave sooner. She claimed he sexually harassed her during this period and raped her twice one day, leading to her complaint.
A clinical psychologist’s report confirmed the complainant showed post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms directly linked to the defendant’s actions. The court accepted long-term silence as a psychological defense mechanism, including her role in “caring” for her mother from a young age.
The defendant denied all charges, alleging false claims and revenge motives by the mother. The trial court rejected his testimony as inconsistent and evasive, while deeming the complainant’s consistent, steady, and free of exaggeration – limited to what a child could perceive.
Appeal dismissed, sentence stands
The appeal targeted only the mother’s testimony evaluation, claiming she incited false accusations. The Appeal Court rejected this, noting the conviction rested primarily and decisively on the complainant’s independently assessed testimony.
At disclosure time, mother and daughter lived abroad, had reorganized their lives, and faced no active conflict with the defendant to suggest revenge. The court viewed justice-seeking as closing a traumatic chapter.
The Appeal Court found no basis to intervene in the trial court’s credibility findings, dismissed the appeal as unfounded, and fully upheld the conviction and sentence.
Also read: CYPSA: call for formal recognition of psychological assessment in violence cases
Subscribe to our Youtube channel for the latest updates.
