The 21-year-old man cleared of migrant smuggling will keep his three-year prison sentence.
He had driven an overloaded boat with 32 migrants toward Cyprus. The Prosecution asked the Supreme Court to cancel part of his acquittal and increase the sentence, claiming such cases need tougher punishment. After examining the evidence and the case law, the Supreme Court decided the original ruling was correct. It rejected the appeal and kept the sentence unchanged.
The Court reviewed two appeal grounds raised by the Attorney General. He tried to reverse the acquittal under Article 19A(1) of the Aliens and Immigration Law, and also to raise the three-year sentence under Article 19(1)(ζ). The Supreme Court dismissed both grounds and confirmed the lower court’s judgment.
Supreme Court: three-year sentence appropriate, appeal rejected
In the first ground, the Attorney General claimed the Larnaca Criminal Court misunderstood the issue of financial gain. He argued that avoiding a fare could count as financial benefit. The Supreme Court clarified that the trial court never ruled otherwise. The acquittal came from a lack of proof of intent, and the appellant never disputed that. The Supreme Court found no basis for the argument and dismissed it.
The core dispute lay in the second ground. The Prosecution argued that three years did not reflect the seriousness of the case. It claimed the defendant benefited by not paying a fare, took navigation lessons in advance, and guided an overloaded boat with strangers. It said these facts made the case more serious.
The legal reasoning
The Prosecution relied on recent Supreme Court rulings, including Attorney General v. Ali Terzelaki (4.6.2024), where the Court increased a similar sentence. The Supreme Court replied that previous rulings guide, but do not bind. Each sentence must reflect the specific facts and the offender.
The Court reviewed the legal principles that allow it to change a sentence. It repeated that intervention is possible only when the original sentence is plainly excessive, plainly inadequate, or based on an error of principle. It found that the trial court correctly applied the LE and Stark aggravating factors and identified three relevant ones.
The trial court also weighed key mitigating elements: the defendant’s young age, his clean record, and his personal profile. These supported rehabilitation, without ignoring deterrence. The Prosecution did not challenge this part.
The Supreme Court decided that a three-year sentence fits the legal framework, which allows up to ten years. It reflects a correct balance between aggravating and mitigating factors. It found no error and no inadequacy.
The Court concluded there was no reason to change the sentence. It rejected the appeal in full and upheld the original judgment.
Also read: Romania deploys fighters after overnight drone violations
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@sigmaliveen
