Cyprus’s Court of Appeal has upheld prison sentences of seven and four years imposed on a man convicted of sexually abusing a 10-year-old girl in Limassol, despite finding the punishment exceptionally lenient and close to the limits of what the law permits.
The Attorney General had challenged the sentences as manifestly inadequate, arguing that the Criminal Court had failed to give sufficient weight to the seriousness of the offences, the circumstances in which they were committed and the vulnerability of the child.
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the challenge, ruling that the trial court had properly considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and had not made an error of principle that would justify increasing the sentences.
A child placed in the care of a trusted neighbour
According to the court’s findings, the offences took place in 2018, when the girl was living with her parents and two older siblings in a small basement home in Limassol.
The convicted man lived in the same building, in a property above the family’s home, with his wife and son. He was a neighbour and friend of the girl’s father and had been trusted to look after her when no other family member was available.
The court heard that the girl’s father had alcohol dependency problems, while her mother experienced psychiatric difficulties. There had also been incidents of domestic violence involving the father.
The girl was frequently left alone for long periods because other family members were working and had attended primary school very little.
The court found that she was less emotionally mature than other children her age, struggled to recognise danger and was more inclined to trust others, making her particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse.
When her father went to work, she would sometimes stay at the neighbour’s home. His wife and son were also at work during those hours, leaving him alone with the child.
The man had previously looked after her, leading her to regard him as a good person. The court found that this arrangement had effectively placed him in a position of trust, authority and influence over the girl.
Girl fled neighbour’s home after abuse
One day during the summer of 2018, the girl went to the man’s home because nobody else was available to look after her.
The man attempted to sexually abuse her but did not complete the act.
The child, shocked and unable to understand what was happening, pulled up her clothes and ran from the property without saying anything to him.
She returned home, where her mother was present, but did not tell her what had happened because she was frightened and unsure how her parents would react.
The court also heard that, on several occasions around the same period, the man exposed his genitals to the girl while she was playing alone on the veranda and he was on his balcony.
He knew that the child could see him.
Attorney General challenges sentences as inadequate
Following a trial, the man was convicted on two counts of child sexual abuse.
The Criminal Court imposed a seven-year prison sentence for engaging in a sexual act with a child under the age of 13 and a four-year sentence for causing a child to witness a depiction of sexual acts.
The Attorney General appealed against the sentences, arguing that they were manifestly inadequate.
The prosecution maintained that the trial court had failed to attach sufficient weight to the gravity of the offences, the circumstances of their commission, the aggravating factors and the need for deterrence.
It also argued that the court had underestimated the psychological consequences for the girl and the distress she suffered when she was required to undergo cross-examination and relive her experiences.
According to the prosecution, excessive weight had been given to mitigating factors and the convicted man’s personal circumstances.
Appeal rejected despite finding sentence exceptionally lenient
The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the Attorney General’s appeal.
It found that the Criminal Court had adequately examined the circumstances of the case and properly assessed both aggravating and mitigating factors.
The appeal judges concluded that the sentencing decision involved no error of principle and did not depart from the framework established by previous case law.
However, the court described the sentence as “exceptionally lenient” and said it fell “at the limit of the permissible range”.
Despite that assessment, the judges ruled that the punishment had not crossed the threshold that would justify appellate intervention.
The original sentencing decision was therefore upheld.
