Nicosia, Cyprus. The Nicosia district court on Friday handed suspended prison sentences to two of 11 defendants charged with dereliction of duty in the trial into the suicide of 14-year-old Stylianos Constantinou in September 2019. The court said their actions were “clearly impermissible and condemnable”.
Defendants and sentences
The two defendants were the fifth and seventh in the case and had changed their pleas to guilty: a social services officer who admitted to three charges and a welfare services officer who admitted to one. The court sentenced the first to 10 months in prison for each of the three charges, with the sentences to run concurrently, and the second to eight months in prison for the single charge.
Findings against the first defendant
The court said the first defendant had been assigned to protect and care for Stylianos and was aware of the abuse and neglect the boy was experiencing. The officer was found to have deliberately neglected assigned duties by not protecting the child who was being beat up by his father, not taking measures to protect the child as the father slaughtered animals in front of him on his farm, and not removing Stylianos from his family home.
Findings against the second defendant
The court found the second defendant guilty of showing conscious indifference for Stylianos’ case and deliberately neglecting to examine the living conditions of the family and take measures to protect the boy.
Court comments on public trust and duty
“The public expects that public officers who hold such key positions and indeed positions of trust, will provide active protection to vulnerable individuals. Otherwise the trust of the public is shaken, the state institutions are undermined and the functioning of the state itself is undermined,” the court said. It added that vulnerable individuals are exposed to dangers that could have been prevented with timely and active handling by social welfare services officers who have a duty to do so.
Assessment of seriousness
The court said the charges were serious, and became more so because “the fate and protection of an underaged vulnerable person was in their hands and they did not do what they should have done”. It said the defendants “were not only indifferent, but they deliberately did not fulfill their duties”, and described their actions as “clearly impermissible and condemnable”.
What do you think the ruling means for accountability among public officers tasked with protecting vulnerable individuals?
