A father and son have lost a Supreme Court bid to challenge a search warrant that allowed police to search their home and premises and seize five hunting guns and an air rifle. The two men are under investigation over alleged death threats against a man, including one allegedly made in front of his daughter.
In a ruling dated Thursday, Judge Alexandros Panayiotou refused them leave to apply for a certiorari order quashing the warrant, which was issued by Nicosia District Court. He found the warrant necessary and proportionate, as the evidence before the district court linked the weapons to the case, and said that court had given adequate reasons and had not exceeded its jurisdiction.
The complainant told police on 1 September 2026 that the two men had repeatedly threatened him. He alleged that on 23 August 2025, after an argument with the son, both men began threatening to kill him, and that the son told him: “I’ll pull out a gun and shoot you.”
The disputes continued, he said, and at about 7.20pm on 28 August 2026, as he was walking home with his daughter, the two men threatened him again. The son allegedly told him he would put him two metres under the ground, pointing to a cemetery about 200 metres from his home.
The complainant reportedly linked the threats to the fact that earlier that day he had photographed a nearby field where the two men parked their heavy vehicles.
Police records showed that the father held a licence to possess two hunting guns belonging to someone else, while the son owned four hunting guns and an air rifle. Police then applied for a search warrant, which was issued on 8 September 2026.
When it was carried out, the two men handed over five hunting guns and an air rifle, which the son said they held legally. A G3A3 military rifle issued to one of them as a reservist was also handed to police, along with his military kit bag and its contents, including cartridges and magazines.
Through their lawyer, Viktoras Akamas, the two men argued that the warrant breached the principle of proportionality and their constitutional rights. The first alleged threat dated from about 12.5 months before the warrant was issued, they said, and there was no claim that a weapon had been used or shown during any of the incidents.
They also argued that police could have asked them to hand over the guns, or suspended or revoked their licences, without entering their home. There was not enough evidence linking the weapons to the alleged offence, they said, and the district court had not properly explained its decision.
The judge found that, although the first alleged threat dated back 12.5 months, the police evidence showed threats repeated continuously over time, culminating in the incident of 28 August 2026, which allegedly took place in front of the complainant’s daughter. That incident had apparently alarmed the complainant and prompted him to report the matter, the judge said, and police had acted without delay once they established that the two men had guns.
He rejected the argument that the weapons had to have been used or shown to be linked to the case. The complaint explicitly referred to a threat to use a gun, and police records established that the two men had the weapons, so the necessary link existed for investigating the offence of making threats, he said.
The judge also rejected the claim that less onerous measures could have been used instead of a seizure. Given the seriousness of the threats to the complainant’s life and the reference to guns, he said, an immediate police response was appropriate.
He described as unfortunate a statement in the police affidavit that the warrant was needed “to avoid unpleasant situations”, but said the wording did not undermine the rest of the evidence.
