The appeals court has rejected the appeal of a man convicted of sexually abusing a minor, leaving his 12-year prison sentence in force.
The appellant was found guilty of six counts of sexual abuse of a child. According to the criminal court, he exploited a position of trust, power, and influence, repeatedly engaging in illicit sexual activity with the complainant, who was born in 2008.
The offences reportedly occurred at different times between 2020 and 2021, with three charges relating to a period when the complainant was under 13 years old.
The criminal court imposed concurrent sentences of 10 years for three charges and 12 years for the remaining three. One additional charge had been suspended by the attorney-general.
Court findings indicate the complainant met the accused a few months after her family moved to a particular village. The court accepted that the defendant repeatedly approached her, expressed feelings of love, and engaged in sexual acts on the veranda of her home and in her parents’ bedroom, when other family members were absent.
In his appeal, the convicted man raised three grounds, challenging the credibility of the complainant’s testimony, alleging flaws in the police investigation and claiming that his right to a fair trial had been violated, while asserting that the minor’s testimony was instigated or coached.
The appeals court rejected the defendant’s appeal in full, upholding the original conviction and sentences from the Limassol criminal court.
It dismissed claims about the complainant’s credibility, noting her young age, cultural background, close relationship with the accused, and feelings of fear and shame naturally explained any inconsistencies or delays in her account.
Her testimony painted a clear picture of events despite some descriptive challenges, backed by expert testimony on how child sexual abuse victims typically react.
The court further dismissed allegations of witness incitement, citing a lack of any supporting evidence, and determined that the omission of genetic testing did not undermine the investigation. This was because no evidence indicated sexual intercourse on the relevant date, and a considerable period of time had elapsed since the events in question.
Consequently, it was held that the appellant’s right to a fair trial had not been violated.
