Site icon Cyprus inform

Appeal court upholds pre-trial detention in Famagusta sexual offence case

Famagusta district court

Famagusta, Cyprus. The Court of Appeal has upheld the pre-trial detention of a Turkish Cypriot man facing charges of rape, indecent assault and sexual harassment, rejecting his appeal against a district court order that he remain in custody until his trial before the Famagusta criminal court.


Appeal court ruling

In a judgment dated July 23, the appeal court found that the Famagusta district court had properly exercised its discretion in ordering the defendant’s detention, the law office said on Tuesday.

The defendant faces four charges concerning the same complainant, all alleged to have occurred at the same time and location.

Following his committal for trial, the prosecution successfully sought his continued detention pending the hearing, citing a risk that he would fail to appear before the court.

Defence arguments rejected

The defence argued that there was insufficient evidence to indicate a likelihood of conviction and that the defendant’s personal circumstances excluded any risk of absconding.

The appeal court said the argument concerning the prospect of conviction relied on a selective reading of the evidence.

“We do not agree with the appellant’s counsel that the evidence does not indicate a likelihood of conviction,” the judgment said, adding that the defence had relied on “a fragmented and selective reading” of the complainant’s statement rather than an assessment of the evidence as a whole.

Legal principles

The court reiterated that remanding a defendant in custody before trial is an exceptional measure and is within the discretion of the trial court.

It said appellate intervention is justified only where that discretion has not been properly exercised or established legal principles have been ignored.

The court added that, when considering pre-trial detention, it does not assess witness credibility or determine guilt or innocence, but examines whether the evidence is sufficiently strong to establish a reasonable prospect of conviction.

It also rejected the defence argument that the defendant’s ties to the Republic, including his Cypriot citizenship, eliminated any risk of absconding.

Exit mobile version