A Syrian migrant smuggler who appealed in an effort to reduce his sentence instead saw it significantly increased, after the Court of Appeal rejected his criminal appeal in full and upheld the findings of the trial court.
The case relates to an incident on 8 February 2024, highlighting both the dangers of irregular sea migration routes and the firm judicial stance taken by Cypriot courts on offences linked to illegal migration.
Boat found adrift off Cape Greco
According to the court record, a patrol vessel of the Port and Marine Police, acting on information from Ayia Napa marina, located a small boat approximately 6.75 nautical miles southeast of Cape Greco.
The vessel, measuring around five to six metres, was carrying 18 Syrian irregular migrants- 15 adults and three minors. Testimony revealed that the engine was not working, there was no fuel on board and the boat was drifting uncontrollably, posing an immediate threat to the lives of those on board.
Conviction and original sentence
The trial court found the defendant to be a prohibited immigrant who entered the Republic through a non-designated port and, crucially, that he assisted prohibited immigrants to enter Cyprus illegally, in breach of Article 19(1)(z) of the Aliens and Immigration Law, Cap. 105.
He was initially sentenced to:
- 18 months’ imprisonment for illegal entry
- 4 months’ imprisonment for a related offence
- 30 months’ imprisonment for assisting prohibited immigrants
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Appeal rejected in full
The convicted man lodged an appeal citing 11 grounds, arguing primarily that there was no reliable evidence proving he had navigated the boat. The defence focused on alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of two fellow passengers.
The Court of Appeal fully endorsed the trial court’s assessment of the evidence. One witness was described as giving direct, honest and credible testimony, having observed the accused steering the boat for approximately 20 hours. Another witness, despite acknowledging limited observation due to fatigue, narrowed the identity of the navigator to two individuals, a factor which, combined with the first testimony, allowed for a safe and reliable finding.
No error in identification principles
The appeal court also dismissed claims that the principles of the TURNBULL case had been misapplied, noting that the presence of the accused on the boat and his position near the helm were not disputed, but rather his actions. Once the trial court was satisfied with the quality of identification, no additional corroboration was required.
The testimony of a senior Port and Marine Police officer, with 23 years of service, was also deemed expert and fully reliable, particularly regarding the vessel’s dangerous and overloaded condition.
Sentence increased to four years
In a decisive move, the Court of Appeal ruled that the original sentence was inadequate given the circumstances and the role played by the accused.
As a result:
- The 30-month sentence for assisting prohibited migrants was increased to four years’ imprisonment
- The 18-month sentence for illegal entry was increased to two years’ imprisonment
The criminal appeal was dismissed in its entirety, while the prosecution’s cross-appeal on sentencing succeeded.
The ruling reinforces the courts’ consistent approach to migrant smuggling cases, particularly those involving serious risk to human life.
Also read: 5 year prison sentence for 24-year-old found smuggling migrants
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
