Nicosia, Cyprus. The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals in two separate criminal cases involving serious charges including rape, sexual offences, psychological violence and child abduction, upholding lower court rulings that the defendants remain in custody pending trial.
First case
In the first case, identified in court documents as MH, the defendant faces eight charges, including the alleged rape of his wife, common assault, malicious damage, unlawful deprivation of liberty, psychological violence, threats to distribute intimate photographs and videos, and the alleged removal of the couple’s two children to Jordan without the mother’s consent.
The defendant argued before the Court of Appeal that the prosecution’s evidence did not establish a sufficient likelihood of conviction and that there was no genuine risk of absconding. He also proposed release under strict bail conditions.
The court found that the Nicosia criminal court had correctly concluded that there was a prima facie case against the defendant and a real risk of flight. It took into account the seriousness of the allegations, the possibility of substantial prison sentences if convicted, and the fact that the couple’s children are now outside Cyprus.
Second case
In the second case, identified as NP, the defendant is on trial before the Famagusta criminal court on charges of rape, sexual harassment and child abduction. He sought to overturn a detention order by arguing that new evidence had significantly weakened the prosecution’s case.
The defence pointed to the absence of the defendant’s sperm cells in forensic examinations of the complainant, findings from medical examinations and material obtained from closed-circuit television footage.
The Court of Appeal ruled that such evidence could not be assessed in isolation at the detention stage, nor could it be used to determine the credibility of the complainant before trial.
It said these issues would be examined during the evidentiary phase of the proceedings and were matters for the trial court to determine.
Court’s reasoning
In both judgments, the court reiterated that detention hearings are not intended to determine the ultimate guilt or innocence of an accused person. It said the relevant test is whether the available evidence establishes a prima facie likelihood of conviction and whether sufficient grounds remain to justify deprivation of liberty pending trial.
The court acknowledged that pre-trial detention is an exceptional measure, but held that in both cases the circumstances presented before the lower courts justified its continuation.
