The Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld a man’s three-year prison sentence for a burglary in Limassol. In its decision it took into account his record of cases involving violence and threats against his wife, and his breach of a court order to stay away from her.
The man had argued that psychiatric problems, drug addiction, homelessness and a lack of family support made the sentence manifestly excessive. The burglary and theft, on 17 May 2025, involved a haul worth 18,520 euros.
Limassol District Court imposed an immediate custodial sentence, taking into account two other cases pending against him. These involved offences committed against his wife on different dates in Limassol, including threats, harassment, psychological and physical violence, common assault and causing bodily harm. The order he ignored banned him from coming within 100 metres of her or contacting her in any way.
The district court took into account as mitigating factors his guilty plea, his cooperation with police, a Social Welfare Services report and his efforts to come off drugs. However, it found that his previous conviction for similar offences justified a stricter sentence, as it had not deterred him from offending again. That conviction was for house burglary, theft, attempted burglary and possessing a housebreaking implement.
In his appeal, the man said the lower court had not properly assessed his personal circumstances. He cited psychiatric problems, for which he had been treated at Athalassa Hospital, as well as drug addiction, unemployment and a lack of family and social support. He also argued that his guilty plea and cooperation with police had not been given due weight, and that his previous convictions had counted too heavily against him.
The Court of Appeal found his complaints had no basis, noting that the district court had considered all the evidence before it, including his personal and family circumstances. The lower court had specifically noted his addiction to hard drugs, the loss of contact with his two young daughters after his relationship with his wife broke down, and the fact that he had dropped out of a treatment programme early.
The judgment stressed the seriousness of the offences and what it called a worrying rise in burglaries and thefts, saying such crimes undermine the public’s sense of security. Personal difficulties cannot justify turning to crime, particularly where the offences undermine public safety, the Court of Appeal said. It added that three years for the burglary could not be considered excessive, given that he had been jailed for two and a half years in 2019 for an earlier burglary and theft.
