Cyprus’ Court of Appeal has upheld the conviction of a property owner for burglary and the theft of equipment worth €2,850, dismissing all grounds of appeal raised by the convicted man.
The case related to incidents in January 2019, when the appellant was accused of breaking into a building he owned that was rented to a third party and removing equipment belonging to a nightclub business.
The original indictment alleged that the stolen property was worth €132,700. The defendant also faced two counts of obtaining money by false pretences after allegedly selling stolen items as his own property to two separate buyers for €700 and €1,650.
However, the Larnaca District Court found him guilty only of the burglary and theft charge, concluding that the prosecution had proven the theft of equipment worth €2,850. He was acquitted of the fraud-related charges after the court found the evidence insufficient.
Landlord claimed unpaid rent
The appellant did not deny changing the locks of the premises or selling items that did not belong to him.
Instead, he argued that the tenant owed him substantial unpaid rent, that he had been informed the lease had ended, and that he sold the items to recover the debt.
He further claimed he acted in good faith, believing he was exercising a lawful right, and argued that the police investigation had been inadequate.
In his appeal, he challenged the trial court’s assessment of the evidence, its interpretation of Criminal Code provisions relating to an “honest claim of right” and “necessity”, alleged defects in the indictment and claimed he had been denied a fair trial.
Court rejects good-faith defence
The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court had correctly assessed the evidence and found no reason to interfere with its findings.
It attached particular significance to the appellant’s claim that he believed his actions were lawful.
The judges noted that he was fully aware of the legal procedures available for recovering possession of the property and claiming unpaid rent. Correspondence sent to the tenant showed that he had referred to court proceedings and eviction procedures, while he later followed those legal avenues and obtained the necessary court orders.
The court described as “inconceivable” the argument that someone could genuinely believe stealing and selling another person’s property was a lawful way to recover a debt, rejecting the defence based on an honest claim of right.
It also dismissed the argument of necessity, finding there had been no unavoidable danger that could justify bypassing lawful legal remedies.
No breach of fair trial rights
The Court of Appeal also rejected claims that the appellant had been denied a fair trial.
It found that, despite his complaints about the police investigation, all relevant evidence had been disclosed in sufficient time for him to prepare his defence, and no procedural or evidential violations had occurred.
The court further dismissed arguments that the indictment was defective, ruling that the defendant had suffered no disadvantage. It also held that the trial court had acted lawfully in convicting him only for the portion of the charge that had been proven, namely the theft of property worth €2,850 rather than the higher amount originally alleged.
The Court of Appeal ultimately rejected all six grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction in full.
Also read: Half of businesses inspected found failing to issue receipts or accept cards
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
