The Court of Appeal by a unanimous decision he overturned a decision of the District Court of Famagusta by which three defendants in a serious case of alleged domestic violence had been released under restrictive conditions and ordered their pretrial detention until their trial scheduled for July 16, 2026.
The case concerns three appeals registered by the Attorney General of the Republic, following the decision of the court of first instance dated May 25, 2026, which rejected the detention request of the three defendants, a father and two children, who face a total of 122 charges for offenses allegedly committed against members of the same family, in a period spanning from 2013 to 2026.
According to the facts recorded in the court decision, the defendants, who are recognized political refugees and have resided in Cyprus for approximately 20 years, face charges that include, but are not limited to, serious acts of violence, child abuse, threats, physical assaults and other offenses of a domestic nature. The father also faces particularly serious charges which, according to the indictment, extend to attempted sexual abuse.
The Prosecuting Authority had requested the detention of all the accused until the trial, citing the risk of fugitive justice, influencing witnesses and re-offending. The trial court had rejected the request, ruling that the accused’s ties to the Republic of Cyprus, their long residence, their work and their clean criminal records limited their risk of flight, instead imposing strict bail conditions and restrictive orders of removal and no contact with the alleged victims.
Reviewing the three appeals together, the Court of Appeals emphasized that remand is an exceptional measure and that the trial court’s judgment should be reviewed only where there is a finding of an erroneous exercise of discretion. However, as stated in the decision, the trial court gave too much weight to the personal and social circumstances of the defendants, underestimating the seriousness of the charges and the risk of possible multi-year prison terms.
The Court of Appeal held that, in light of the seriousness of the offenses and the possibility of particularly severe sentences upon conviction, the risk of absconding had not been sufficiently excluded. As noted, the ties of the defendants with Cyprus, although existing, were not deemed capable of outweighing the possible motive to avoid the trial.
At the same time, the court gave particular weight to the risk of reoffending, pointing out that the time span of the complaints, the nature of the alleged acts and the existence of other pending cases create, in its judgment, a strong indication of a possible continuation of similar behavior. The fact that the minor complainants had moved away from the family home was considered insufficient in itself to neutralize the particular risk.
Special mention was also made of the risk of influencing witnesses. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the first instance assessment that the restraining orders were sufficient to protect the witnesses, pointing out that the case file already records an attempt to influence a minor witness after taking a statement. This fact was considered to be of decisive importance, since, as stated, it strengthens the real possibility of the continuation of similar actions.
The court also underlined that the witnesses in the case are not only limited to family members, but also include third parties, which makes the existing restrictive measures insufficient to fully prevent risks of influence.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court’s discretion was not properly exercised, as it failed to adequately weigh all the critical factors, in particular the seriousness of the offenses, the likelihood of conviction and the inherent risks of the case. Accordingly, the Attorney General’s appeals were allowed, the first instance judgment was set aside and the three defendants were ordered to be detained immediately until their trial in July 2026.
