The Supreme Court in Nicosia unanimously rejected last Thursday the appeal filed by the convicted person, seeking the reversal of the conviction of the Criminal Court of Nicosia to 4 years in prison, for sexual offenses.
The appellant was found guilty by the Court of First Instance on two charges, relating to sexual offenses, which arose on April 3, 2016.
Specifically, his first offense involved participating in a sexual act with a child, in violation of Article 6 (4) (a) of the Law on the Prevention and Combating of Sexual Abuse, Child Sexual Exploitation and Child Pornography, while the second he committed an indecent assault on a woman, in violation of Article 151 of the Penal Code, Chapter 154.
The subject of the sexual offenses was the appellant, the daughter of the appellant, aged, at the material time, eleven years old.
It is noted that the Criminal Court, in its decision, found that the components of the aforementioned two offenses were proven, on the basis of the same facts, which it accepted as true and therefore imposed on the appellant a sentence of four years imprisonment only in the first charge.
According to the decision of the Supreme Court, the appeal was limited to the two reasons, which the defense counsel of the appellant registered in addition to the incomplete notification that the appellant himself had registered.
As it is noted, “with them, only his conviction is challenged, while their focus is, mainly, the truth of the complainant's testimony, as a matter of common sense”.
The Supreme Court states that the Criminal Court ruled that the testimony of the complainant was not contrary to the scientific testimony of the Medical Examiner, who was a key witness in the case and at the stage of the appeal, no position was developed to convince otherwise.
Therefore, the decision states, the conclusion of the first instance in conclusion is considered correct.
In relation to the defense's suggestion, on the basis of the Clinical Psychologist's indisputable report stating that the complainant had specific symptoms of post-traumatic stress, however, her condition did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of the particular disorder, the complainant said that she had been submitted by the appellant to the treatment on which the charges against him were substantiated, which ultimately led to his conviction.
“As it is understood, the above position of the Defense takes for granted that the treatment described by the complainant that she suffered from the appellant should, in any case, have caused her post-traumatic stress. The Clinical Psychologist did not, however, mention such a thing in her testimony, nor did the Defense offer any such testimony to the Criminal Court. Therefore, the appellant's suggestion above cannot be upheld. It is noted that this was the conclusion, in this regard, of the Criminal Court, which, based on the discussion that has preceded, is considered correct “, the decision states.
In relation to another ground of the appeal that the Criminal Court, in assessing the testimony of the complainant, did not take into account the young man of her age and therefore was not adequately guided, the Supreme Court notes that this suggestion is limited to general remarks and does not refer to any manipulations. , in this regard, by the Criminal Court regarding specific aspects of the complainant's testimony.
As he states “in general, it is not specified in the reasoning what exactly the Criminal Court erred in assessing the testimony of the complainant and what it was expected to do, as legally correct, in the context of the above operation”.
“Therefore, the issue under consideration is seen as particularly limited in relation to what should be considered in that regard. To be precise, this generally raises the issue of handling the testimony of the complainant by the Criminal Court and, in particular, in relation to the proof of the offense, for which the appellant was convicted, according to the Law “, he adds.
Finally, the decision states that it is not established that the Defense countered, at the stage of the appeal, anything in order to successfully demonstrate that there were issues in the complainant's testimony which, reasonably, made her of doubtful value as to its truth.