A man whose DNA was found on a mask and gloves in a Larnaca flat where more than a kilogram of synthetic drugs was discovered in 2016 has lost his appeal against a six-year prison sentence. The Court of Appeal ruled that the Larnaca Criminal Court had made no error in assessing the evidence or in setting the sentence.
The drugs were discovered on July 5, 2016, when the owner of the flat, which the man had rented since September 2014, went to change the locks because of unpaid rent, according to the ruling. Inside, the owner found aluminium trays containing dry plant material and an electronic scale, and called the police. Officers from the Anti-Drugs Unit (YKAN) searched the flat with his consent and found, among other things, 1,117.1 grams of plant material laced with synthetic drugs.
According to the ruling, the scientific evidence was decisive. The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics matched the man’s DNA to genetic material found inside a mask and a pair of gloves taken from the flat, and traces of plant material containing drugs were found on the gloves. A box of 2,000 black bags was also found in the flat, with a DHL delivery receipt in the man’s name.
The Criminal Court found that this evidence, together with the rest of the testimony, proved that he knew about the drugs and still had possession of the flat when they were found. It rejected his claim that he no longer lived there and had handed the keys to his brother.
The man was eventually arrested on June 4, 2021, at the Deryneia crossing point as he tried to cross into the occupied north, when a check showed there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest in the case. Told about the warrant, he replied: “I didn’t know”, according to the ruling.
The Criminal Court found him guilty on all three charges. It sentenced him to six years for possession of drugs with intent to supply and to six months for possession of the smaller quantity, to run concurrently, with the time he had spent on remand taken into account.
The appeal
The man challenged both his conviction and his sentence. He argued that the facts did not justify a guilty verdict, and that the Criminal Court had not allowed him to present an IT expert, who would have examined photographs that he said proved he was in England at the time.
The Court of Appeal rejected his arguments. It said the Criminal Court had assessed the evidence in detail and given adequate reasons for rejecting his version, and that refusing an adjournment to find an expert had not denied him a fair trial, because he had the opportunity to present and argue his claim that he was abroad.
He also argued that the sentences were excessive given his clean criminal record, his personal and family circumstances and the time that had passed since the offences. The Court of Appeal said the trial court had taken into account his clean record, his circumstances and the fact that he is the father of a child under 18. In drug cases of this kind, however, personal circumstances carry limited weight, because protecting society and imposing deterrent sentences come first, it said. It also noted that most of the time between the offences and the trial had passed before his arrest.
The sentences were within the range set by case law for similar cases, and there was no error of principle justifying intervention, the court said. It dismissed the appeal unanimously.
