Limassol, Cyprus. Pre-trial objections by defence lawyers for five people accused of covering up the murder of Thanasis Nicolaou were heard on Friday before the Limassol district court and are set to conclude on March 19.
Defendants and charges
The defendants are former state pathologist Panicos Stavrianos, former Limassol police chief Angelos Iatropolos, former Limassol police crime detection unit chief Nicos Sophocleous, former head of rural police Christakis Nathanael, and former head of the police station in the Limassol district village of Lania, Christakis Kapiliotis.
Almost 40 charges have been filed against the five, most of which are against Stavrianos, including conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, neglect of official duty, issuing a false certificate, perjury, destruction of evidence and interference with judicial proceedings.
Lawyer’s withdrawal and court ruling
The Nicolaou family’s lawyer, Savvas Matsas, who had announced on February 19 that he would withdraw in order to testify as a prosecution witness, told the court there was a second reason for his decision.
He presented a police note stating that he had received death threats and a warning that he might become the victim of a criminal act, without specifying whether the threats were related to the current case.
The defence objected to Matsas presenting this second reason, but the judge overruled the objection, and defence lawyers also alleged that Matsas was lying.
Procedural dispute and next steps
The family’s new lawyer, Christos Clerides, argued that the five defendants should first have been formally charged and called to answer the charges before the court proceeded with hearing the pre-trial objections.
The court said it would not accept further delays and called on the defence to proceed with presenting its objections.
Background to the private case
The private case was filed after the legal service announced in June that it intended to file no criminal charges regarding the alleged cover-up of Nicolaou’s.
What do you think the court should prioritise next as the case proceeds?
