The Court of Appeals overturned a decision by the Paphos District Court, and I rubbed my eyes when reading its reasoning (published 2 June). Is it possible for judges to make such “errors”? That’s what the Court of Appeal said—that it was a “first instance error”.
The case concerned a 26-year-old facing six charges at first instance: conspiracy to commit a felony, theft, malicious damage, possession and transportation of explosive materials, among others. She had seven previous convictions for the same offence. Seven convictions.
Note the errors the Court of Appeal identified—they’re worth reading:
1. The first instance court examined the detention application before scheduling the case.
2. It decided detention was not justified, despite seven previous convictions for similar offences and two other pending cases for similar crimes creating a strong impression of repeat offending.
3. Particularly given that the offences in the case under consideration were committed during the suspended sentence period imposed for six of her seven previous convictions.
4. After the first instance decision that detention was not justified, the court proceeded to schedule the case for hearing on 20 March 2026—a full year later. A year!
5. The Court of Appeals expressed displeasure (that’s what they called it—displeasure!) at scheduling a criminal case for hearing nearly a year later, when it was a relatively simple case with seven witnesses, six of whom were police officers.
Common sense—not that of the Court of Appeals or the District Judge, but that of ordinary citizens—says this is inconceivable. Seven previous convictions, new offences committed during a suspended prison sentence for previous crimes, yet detention of the accused is not justified and the trial is scheduled a year later!
The Court of Appeals quashed the District Judge’s decision, issued a detention order for the accused, and gave instructions for the case to be brought before the first instance judge no later than 6 June 2025 at 9am (such precision—they even specified the time!) so it could be rescheduled for the earliest possible hearing.
In effect, the Supreme Court sitting as Court of Appeals made mincemeat of the District Court, to put it politely. Not because it made a justifiable error, but because it got nothing right.
These decisions overturning first instance judgements are so frequent they make you wonder what’s happening with judges. You might say that’s why the Court of Appeal exists—to correct errors.
However, most of the time (increasingly often now) when decisions are overturned by the Court of Appeal, judges appear completely inadequate. Even incompetent, to be frank. In all types of cases—from indecent assaults to fatal traffic accidents.
For example, a case from last year: someone driving at excessive speed, drunk, ran a red light and killed a Hungarian mother of two children coming home from work.
The Limassol District Court sentenced him to 22 months’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal increased the sentence to three years. What does this mean? That the District Court was inadequate, lacked proper judgement, failed to grasp the seriousness of the offence, and failed to protect the public with a deterrent sentence.
All these judges—those who demonstrably make wrong decisions that offend justice—continue to adjudicate. Without bearing any cost for their erroneous decisions, inadequacy, or inappropriate behaviour.
The day before yesterday, the Supreme Judicial Council decided to confirm the appointment of seven new judges, extend the probationary period by six months for three other judges, and terminate the services of one judge: Doria Varoshiotou.
Of the eleven under probation, only she didn’t make the cut. As Achilles Emilianides stated, this is “not the only time” but “it is indeed extremely rare for a judge not to be made permanent“. Is public outrage unjustified? Is the declining trust of citizens misplaced?
