The Court of Appeal has ordered two parents charged with sexually abusing their son to be held in custody, ruling that there is a risk they could influence the boy’s testimony.
In a unanimous decision dated Tuesday, 10 November, the court upheld two appeals by the Attorney General and overturned a ruling by Larnaca Criminal Court, which had rejected the prosecution’s request to keep the pair in custody.
The parents will be held until Thursday, 12 November, when their hearing resumes before the Criminal Court. The Court of Appeal also cancelled the conditions previously set to secure their appearance in court and struck out the part of an exclusion order that had allowed them contact with the boy.
According to the ruling, the parents face charges including sexual abuse of a child, causing psychological harm to a family member, interfering with judicial proceedings, harassing a victim of violence and common assault, including offences under the domestic violence law.
School visits
Central to the decision were reports that the parents visited the boy at school every day and spoke to him, despite the exclusion order strictly limiting their contact.
The order allowed them to see him for one hour a week, at a time and place set by a Social Welfare Services officer, who had to be present throughout.
The Court of Appeal found that the order did not remove the risk that the boy could be influenced, because the evidence showed the parents had daily access to him in a way that was inconsistent with its terms.
The boy’s statements
The court gave particular weight to the boy’s statements to specially trained police investigators. According to the ruling, he declined in his video-recorded statement to give further details about the incidents of violence and his possible sexual abuse. He said his parents had told him that same day, before he left school, not to tell the police anything.
In a later statement on 13 February 2026, the boy also allegedly said that his parents, particularly his father, had promised him gifts if he withdrew his complaints that his father had beaten him. According to the boy, he would receive the gifts once he returned home.
Lower court overruled
The Court of Appeal disagreed with the Criminal Court, which had found that the exclusion order gave the boy enough protection and that the daily school visits concerned a separate criminal investigation.
The ruling said that the lack of evidence of new, explicit attempts to influence the boy at recent meetings did not remove the risk. The court found that the earlier attempt, together with the parents’ continued access to the boy and all the circumstances, created a reasonable likelihood that his testimony could be influenced.
The court also considered that the mother is pregnant. It said the special legal protection for mothers who are suspects does not apply in this case, because the charges include domestic violence offences that fall under the exceptions in the relevant law.
The Court of Appeal noted that courts must weigh all the evidence when considering detention requests, so that justice can be administered without obstruction and testimony is protected until proceedings are completed.
The two defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
