Cyprus’s Court of Appeal has quashed the conviction and the 18-year and four-year sentences imposed on a Greek Cypriot man over a case involving a total of 72 kilograms of cannabis, and ordered a retrial before a Criminal Court with a different bench.
In a unanimous ruling dated 21 September 2026, judges M. Abiza, St. Christodoulidou-Messiou and I. Stylianidou found that the Limassol Criminal Court had failed to properly inform the defendant of all his options for giving evidence.
The defendant had been convicted by the Limassol Criminal Court on 22 August 2022 on five of six charges he faced, including conspiracy to unlawfully possess, unlawful possession with intent to supply, and importing a Class B controlled drug, along with possession and possession with intent to supply. The cannabis involved weighed a total of 72 kilograms, from which the resin had not been extracted.
He had been sentenced to 18 years for possession with intent to supply and four years for importing a controlled drug. The Criminal Court did not impose separate sentences for the conspiracy and possession charges, ruling that their facts were covered by the other charges.
Before the Court of Appeal, the defendant raised 11 grounds against his conviction and four against his sentence, including that his rights were violated when the trial court failed, after finding a prima facie case, to inform him of his options for mounting his defence.
The Court of Appeal focused first on this ground, because of its potential to decide the outcome of the case. It found that on 14 June 2022 the Criminal Court had told the defendant he could either testify under oath or remain silent, but had not explained he could also make an unsworn statement from the dock, without being cross-examined.
The Article 74 amendment
The court ruled the Criminal Court had wrongly applied an amendment to Article 74 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155, which took effect on 29 April 2022. The amendment had abolished defendants’ right to give evidence without oath, but was not retroactive; since the offences, the filing of the indictment and the start of the trial had all taken place before the amendment came into force, the defendant’s right to make an unsworn statement still applied in his case.
It attached particular weight to the fact that, after the defendant was informed and had already opted to testify under oath, the same Criminal Court allowed a co-defendant in the case to make an unsworn statement, having rejected a prosecution objection and acknowledged that the amendment could not remove that right retroactively.
The court concluded the information given to the defendant had been incomplete, and that this departure from the court’s obligation affected the validity of the trial itself, citing previous case law on informing defendants of their rights. It said it was therefore unnecessary to examine the remaining grounds of appeal concerning the conviction or the sentence.
The Court of Appeal ruled a new trial should be held as soon as possible before a Criminal Court with a different bench, finding that, under the circumstances, the original proceedings were not valid. The defendant will appear before the new court at a date to be set by the Registrar, and will remain under the same bail or custody arrangements as during the first proceedings.
