The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals lodged by defendants in two separate criminal cases involving serious allegations, including rape, sexual offences, psychological violence and child abduction, affirming lower court decisions to keep both men in custody pending the conclusion of their trials.
In the first case, M.H. faces eight charges, including the alleged rape of his wife, common assault, criminal damage, unlawful deprivation of liberty, psychological violence, threats to distribute nude photographs and videos, and the removal of the couple’s two children to Jordan without their mother’s consent.
Flight risk
Before the Supreme Court, the defendant argued that the prosecution evidence did not establish a sufficient prospect of conviction and that there was no genuine risk of absconding. He also proposed that any concerns could be addressed through the imposition of strict bail conditions.
The court, however, held that the Nicosia Assize Court had correctly found a prima facie case and a real risk of flight. In reaching its decision, the court considered the seriousness of the charges, the potentially severe penalties upon conviction, and the fact that the defendant’s children are now outside Cyprus.
In the second case, N.P., who is standing trial before the Famagusta Assize Court on charges of rape, sexual harassment and abduction, sought to overturn a remand order by relying on what the defence described as new evidence that substantially weakened the prosecution’s case.
Justified detention
The material cited included the absence of the defendant’s sperm cells on the complainant, findings from forensic examinations and footage obtained from a closed-circuit television system.
The Appeal Court ruled that such evidence could not be assessed in isolation at the remand stage, nor could it be used to make determinations regarding the complainant’s credibility. The court stressed that these issues would be examined in full during the trial process.
In both judgments, the Appeal Court reiterated that proceedings concerning remand in custody are not intended to determine the ultimate guilt or innocence of an accused person. Rather, the court must consider whether the available evidence establishes a prima facie prospect of conviction and whether grounds continue to exist that justify the deprivation of liberty pending trial.
The court emphasised that detention remains an exceptional measure. Nevertheless, it found that the evidence and circumstances presented before the trial courts justified the continuation of custody in both cases.
It also rejected arguments that stringent bail conditions would be sufficient to mitigate the risks previously identified by the lower courts.
As a result, both appeals were dismissed in their entirety, and the decisions of the respective Assize Courts to keep the defendants in custody until the conclusion of their cases were upheld.
