Despite serious findings of threats to his minor son, attempt to influence pending court proceedings and contempt of court order, the Court of Appeal ruled that the prison terms imposed on a 72-year-old by the District Court Court Pafos were excessive, reducing them due to his advanced age and white criminal record, while keeping his conviction intact.
The case concerned a man, who had been convicted by the District Court of Paphos for four offenses committed in the context of a family dispute and pending criminal proceedings. According to the findings of the trial court, the accused threatened his minor son saying “If it wasn’t you, I would mess with your mom”, while at the same time he tried to influence the judicial process by asking him why his mother did not withdraw the complaint she had registered against him.
The trial court had also found him guilty of contempt of court, violating terms of an order prohibiting him from molesting his son, as well as molesting a victim in a manner likely to influence the adjudication of a related domestic violence case. He was, however, acquitted of three other charges.
On appeal, the convict challenged both the conviction and the terms of imprisonment imposed on him. Among other things, he argued that the court order invoked by the Prosecuting Authority had not been served on him or translated into his native language, Romanian. The Court of Appeal rejected this claim, pointing out that when the decree was issued the appellant was present in court and there was an interpreter, while the trial court had already rejected the position that it was unaware of its content.
The objections regarding the incorrect assessment of the testimony of the minor son and the accused’s wife were also rejected. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court correctly evaluated their testimony and there was no reason to interfere with its findings. At the same time, he rejected the argument that it was necessary to present a psychologist’s report to prove bullying or harassment, noting that such testimony is not required in every case to establish the specific offenses.
The Court of Appeal also rejected the claim that the first instance decision was not sufficiently reasoned, finding that it contained an analysis of the testimony, clear findings and sufficient judicial reasoning.
However, in terms of sentences, the court found that the 15-month prison terms for the threat, 12 months for interfering with legal proceedings and 4 months for contempt of court were excessive in the circumstances of the case.
In his decision, he took into account the fact that the appellant is 72 years old and has a clean criminal record, facts which, as he mentioned, acquire particular weight due to his age. Although he emphasized the seriousness of the offenses and the need to impose deterrent sentences, he held that the specific sentences were not proportionate to the facts of the case.
As a result, the Court of Appeal reduced the prison sentence for the threat from 15 to 12 months, the sentence for interfering with legal proceedings from 12 to 10 months and the sentence for contempt of court from 4 to 2 months. The sentences are still running concurrently, while the decision of the trial court not to suspend their execution was upheld.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal rejected all grounds of appeal relating to the conviction and upheld the guilty findings of the Paphos District Court, intervening only in terms of the amount of prison terms, which it considered should be reduced.
