The Court of Appeal has upheld the continued detention of a man awaiting trial for torture, deprivation of liberty and actual bodily harm, ruling that the complainant’s decision to withdraw his complaint does not undermine the evidence against him. The complainant allegedly had a gun placed in his mouth, was threatened with a knife and was beaten with a belt.
The complainant later withdrew his complaint. In a sworn statement, he said he had no complaint against the accused, that the accused had never hit or threatened him, and that he wanted all proceedings against the accused to end. He also said he did not intend to testify against him and regretted making the original complaint.
The defence relied mainly on that statement, arguing before the Court of Appeal that it was a material change in circumstances because it went beyond withdrawing the complaint and contradicted the original allegations. It asked for the detention to be reviewed and replaced with bail conditions.
In a unanimous ruling issued on Thursday, 5 November 2026, the court upheld a decision by Larnaca Criminal Court to keep the accused in custody pending trial. It found that the complainant’s original statements remain part of the evidence and that his later change of position does not cancel out what had already been recorded. The new sworn statement does not substantially weaken the prosecution’s case or remove the likelihood of conviction, it said.
The judges also noted that the charges concern acts attributed jointly to the defendants and a third person, under the Criminal Code’s provisions on participation in an offence. The complainant’s statement that this particular accused did not hit or threaten him therefore does not overturn the factual basis of the charges, they said.
The court reiterated that pre-trial detention is an exceptional measure, since the starting point of any such decision must be personal liberty. Reviewing detention that has already been ordered, however, requires a substantial new element that justifies a different approach, it said.
Finding that the Criminal Court had examined the facts correctly and given adequate reasons for its decision, the Court of Appeal rejected all four grounds of appeal.
The accused faces three charges together with another person: depriving the complainant of his liberty in order to subject him to treatment that would put him at risk of grievous harm, torture, and causing actual bodily harm.
According to the charge sheet, the complainant was allegedly beaten with a belt on the head and other parts of the body, kicked, subjected to an electric shock device and threatened with a knife, and had a gun placed in his mouth. He is also said to have suffered injuries to his forearm, upper lip and scalp.
The accused was originally remanded in custody because he was considered a flight risk. His defence later objected to his continued detention, citing a change in circumstances. The matter came back before the Criminal Court when the case, which had been set for hearing on 8 October 2026, was postponed at the request of the co-accused’s defence to 10 November, when it is now due to be heard before Larnaca Criminal Court.
