The Criminal Court heard sharply conflicting arguments on Friday over the handling of documents in the case against a prison warden in whose home state documents were allegedly found in April 2025, with the defence challenging both the number of files the prosecution continues to withhold and its legal justification for doing so.
The case centres on documents seized from the home of a prison guard, which the prosecution initially described as numbering around 300,000 state, classified and confidential files. That figure has since collapsed through a series of revisions: from 300,000 to 48,432 references in the indictment, then to approximately 2,900 documents the prosecution said could not be disclosed, then to 1,784, then 440, and as of Friday's hearing, 392. The court had convened specifically to examine the documents the prosecution continues to withhold from the defence and to decide whether they fall within the legal exceptions that permit non-disclosure.
Prosecution representative Anna Matthaios argued that the remaining 392 documents include medical reports, disciplinary cases and personal data protected under the constitution, as well as prison evacuation plans, information about the witness protection programme, detention conditions of protected persons, security system documents, and correspondence between the police and the Central Prisons. "It is our position that these fall under the category of public interest protection and some of them under national security," she told the court.
The defence was unsparing in its response. Lawyer Chris Triantafyllidis, representing the first defendant, traced the history of the shrinking numbers and noted the gap between the original claims and the current reality. "The only thing that was revealed was the croissant recipes," he said, referring to the initial search of the prison warden's home. He questioned the legal basis for the prosecution's position, asking which specific regulatory act underpins the claim that the documents fall under the relevant exceptions, and pointed out that Auditor General reports, some of which are among the contested files, are publicly available. "How is it possible for them to be covered by an exception?" he asked.
The second defendant, Athina Dimitriou, who is representing herself, told the court she had reviewed the allegedly classified documents one by one. "Most of them exist on the internet," she said. She presented the court with a bundle of documents in which the same files appear redacted in some instances and fully visible in others within the prosecution's own evidence. "I detect an exaggeration and impressions are being created. This exaggeration and impression do not justify, in the mind of a reasonable person, how we start at 300,000 and today end up at 392 documents," she said. She also argued that the burden of proving the necessity of concealment had effectively been shifted onto the defence, which she said violated her right to a fair trial and her human rights.
Lawyer for the third defendant, Chloe Constantinou, said many of the documents classified as sensitive carry no signatures, dates or security markings. She also accused the prosecution of selective data protection, noting that personal details of her client and his family appear in the evidence without redaction, while the prosecution invokes data protection for others. "Other people's data is being protected, not my client's," she said.
The court reserved its judgment on the matter, which is expected to be delivered on 28 July 2026 at 9am.
Source: CNA
