The Supreme Court has rejected a new application by a life-sentence prisoner held at the Central Prisons, ruling that the request for a writ of mandamus was overly general and repeated a claim that had already been dismissed weeks earlier.
Application repeated earlier request
The applicant, who is serving a life sentence for two counts of premeditated murder following his conviction by the Limassol Criminal Court on 28 August 2025, filed the new request on 6 March 2026. The prisoner, currently held in Wing 2A of the Central Prisons, sought permission to file an application for a mandamus order against the Director of the Prisons Department, prison officers and other authorised officials.
He asked the Court to order the authorities to safeguard his physical integrity, health, personal property and safety, and to prevent any degrading or inhuman treatment, as well as to issue all necessary directions for the implementation of those obligations.
Court: mandamus must concern specific duty
The Court noted that the same request had already been rejected on 18 February 2026, stressing again that a writ of mandamus is an exceptional remedy used only to compel a public authority to perform a specific legal duty. It cannot be issued for general or undefined obligations.
Referring to legal principles set out in Halsbury’s Laws of England and Cypriot case law, including the 2014 Apesiotis case, the judge stated that the remedies sought were too broad and therefore unsuitable for such an order.
Rights of prisoners remain protected
The Court also underlined that imprisonment does not remove a person’s fundamental rights. While personal liberty is restricted, the rights to life, health and physical integrity remain protected under the Constitution, legislation, international conventions and EU law.
However, the Court ruled that these general obligations already bind the state toward all prisoners and cannot form the basis of a mandamus order. If the applicant believes his rights were violated, he may seek relief through civil proceedings, including claims for damages or court orders.
Application considered abusive
The Supreme Court further held that the new request was abusive, as it repeated the same remedy already examined and rejected in the previous procedure. For that reason, the Court found no justification to grant leave for filing the application and dismissed it.
Also read: No threat to Cyprus, British Bases reassure local authorities
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
