Cyprus’ Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed the appeal of a man who was previously convicted for child sexual abuse in the district of Paphos, according to a ruling issued on August 1st.
According to the ruling’s text, the appellant had been found guilty by the Permanent Criminal Court of Paphos following a full trial. He was convicted on 14 counts in total—12 counts of child sexual abuse and 2 counts of domestic violence.
The charges referred to offences committed between 2017 and May 9, 2019, against a minor born in late 2009, while the appellant was living with the victim’s mother. The Criminal Court had imposed concurrent prison sentences of 11 years (counts 54, 55), 9 years (counts 52, 53), 7 years (counts 42, 43), 6 years (counts 31, 32), 3 years (counts 21, 22), and 8 years (counts 1, 2, 11, 12).
The conviction was challenged on 14 grounds of appeal.
Among the claims, the appellant argued that his right to a fair trial and equality of arms was violated when the Criminal Court did not allow his defence expert to examine the minor, in order to counter the testimony and psychological evaluation report provided by the prosecution’s clinical psychologist. He further claimed that investigative authorities had failed to examine key aspects of the case, which should have led to the suspension of proceedings due to abuse of process.
The appeal also alleged a violation of the presumption of innocence, citing a reversal of the burden of proof in parts of the testimony. It challenged what was described as arbitrary conclusions and assumptions made by the court during the evaluation of witness statements.
The appellant further argued that the testimony of the victim’s mother was wrongly and partially accepted, and that the testimony of the defence’s expert witness was wrongly rejected. He also claimed biased evaluation of his own testimony, omission to consider key exculpatory points, misinterpretation of evidence in his favour, and erroneous assessment of the complainant’s credibility, despite the absence of corroborating evidence.
Additionally, it was claimed that the testimony of the prosecution’s expert witness was wrongly accepted in violation of established case law on expert evidence. The testimony of the appellant’s stepfather was also said to have been wrongly evaluated. The appeal raised inconsistencies between findings in the conviction ruling and the sentencing decision, and alleged violations of fair trial principles due to the repeated “I don’t remember” responses by the victim and her mother.
The 15th ground of appeal challenged the sentence itself, arguing it failed to consider mitigating factors and included aggravating elements that did not apply. A separate appeal filed by the Attorney General challenged the sentence as manifestly inadequate.
The Court of Appeal, in its lengthy judgment, rejected all grounds of appeal as unfounded.
The court noted the “significant age difference” between the convicted individual and the victim, as well as the “exploitation of a trust relationship under conditions of intense violence.”
It also stated that there was no admission of guilt, which could have served as a sign of remorse and spared the victim and her family the emotional burden of a trial and the reliving of traumatic experiences—an element that typically results in a reduced sentence.
“We find no element of manifest excess or inadequacy in the imposed sentence,” the Court said. “The Criminal Court determined the sentence after weighing all relevant factors, in line with established case law for such offences, with appropriate emphasis on deterrence. Based on all of the above, both the conviction appeal and the appeals concerning the sentence are rejected,” the Court concluded.
Source: CNA
Feature photo source: Brazil Reports
Also read: Child pornography measures – Police use of ICACCOPS
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel.
