The Cyprus Court of Appeal rejected an appeal filed by a convicted man, upholding the jail sentences imposed by the Limassos Permanent Criminal Court for a series of child sexual abuse offences.
The appellant had been convicted on six counts of child sexual abuse following a trial, violating the Law on the Prevention and Combating of Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Children. According to the Criminal Court, the defendant exploited a position of trust, authority, and influence to repeatedly engage in unlawful sexual intercourse with the complainant, who was born around early 2008.
The offences were reportedly committed over different periods between 2020 and 2021, with three of the charges relating to a time when the complainant was under the age of 13. The Criminal Court imposed concurrent sentences of 10 years in prison for three counts and 12 years for the other three. An additional charge had been suspended by the Attorney General.
The trial court found that the complainant met the defendant a few months after her family moved to a specific village. The court accepted that the defendant repeatedly approached the victim, expressed feelings of affection, and proceeded with sexual acts both on the veranda of her home and in her parents’ bedroom during times when other family members were absent.
🏛️ Appeal Grounds Rejected
The convicted man filed the appeal on three grounds: he challenged the reliability of the victim’s testimony, claimed the police investigation was flawed and violated his right to a fair trial, and alleged the minor’s testimony was either prompted or guided.
The Court of Appeal rejected the first and third grounds, ruling that the Criminal Court correctly accepted the complainant’s testimony as reliable. The ruling noted that any inconsistencies or delays in disclosing the facts were considered expected, given the complainant’s age, cultural background, relationship with the offender, and the feelings of fear and shame she described.
The Court adopted the trial court’s findings that the complainant provided a clear and coherent account of the events, despite difficulties in descriptive language and temporal determination. Expert witness testimony, including that of a clinical psychologist, regarding the typical reactions of minor sexual abuse victims and reasons for delayed full disclosure was also accepted.
The claim that the testimony was prompted was also rejected, with the Court of Appeal noting that no evidence supported such an assertion, nor was any such claim made during the cross-examination of key witnesses.
Regarding the second ground of appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled that the failure to conduct a DNA examination did not constitute a flawed investigation. This was because there was no evidence of sexual contact on the relevant date, and a significant amount of time had passed since the events. Consequently, the Court found that the appellant’s right to a fair trial had not been violated.
Based on these findings, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal in its entirety, upholding the conviction and the sentences imposed by the Limassos Permanent Criminal Court.
