The Court of Appeals overturned the conviction of a man for causing the major fire on July 3, 2021, in Arakapa, ruling that the circumstantial evidence presented to the Criminal Court was insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was the one who started the fire. At the same time, the Court of Appeals upheld his conviction for a previous incident of setting a fire in the countryside and the six-month prison sentence.
The Court of Appeals’ decision, dated August 11, 2026, concerns the fire in Arakapa, which burned an area of 44.49 square kilometers and caused total damages exceeding €15 million, of which approximately €11.6 million related to agricultural crops and means of production.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The defendant had been convicted by the Limassol Permanent Criminal Court on May 24, 2023, and served three years in prison until the Court of Appeals issued its decision.
According to the ruling, the Criminal Court had based the conviction on a series of circumstances, including the defendant’s presence in his orchard prior to the fire, his access to the point where it started, his movement on foot near the fire’s source, the fact that the fire was located near the orchard’s outermost structure, and his departure in his car shortly before the fire was detected. In this context, two lighters found in his vehicle were also taken into account.
The Court of Appeals ruled, however, that this evidence was insufficient for a conviction. As it noted, “the existence of an opportunity to commit a crime does not, however, equate to the commission of the crime,” ruling that the specific evidence only led to a presumption of his involvement.
Specifically, the Court of Appeals noted that access to the point where the fire started was not possible solely through the defendant’s orchard, as there was a second route. At the same time, although it was established that he had walked to a spot between his property and the reed bed where the fire broke out, the exact time of his movement was not determined.
Regarding the cause of the fire, the Criminal Court had accepted expert testimony that it “was most likely started by an open flame, such as a lighter.” The Court of Appeals noted, however, that this was merely a possibility and that a different cause could not be ruled out. The connection between the possible use of a lighter and the two lighters found in the defendant’s car, the court ruled, could not fill the gap in the testimony.
“It is a well-established principle that speculation is not permitted to fill gaps in the prosecution’s testimony,” the decision states, noting at the same time that there was no direct evidence linking the defendant to the crime.
The Court of Appeals also rejected the claim that the authorities’ investigation had focused exclusively on the defendant, and did not accept that there was sufficient grounds to consider another relative of his—who had also been in the area—a suspect.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals characterized the case as one of “unjustified conviction,” ruling that the evidence could not support the defendant’s guilt with the required moral certainty.
“Based on the findings of the trial court: (a) the defendant was on the premises (garden) a short time before the fire was noticed, (b) Efeseion had the means to start a fire (lighters) at his disposal, and (c) his trip to a neighboring village raised questions, given that he was aware there was a fire in his own village. However, these three pieces of evidence are not sufficient to support, with the required moral certainty, the conclusion that he indeed started the fire on July 3, 2021,” the report states.
“The existing testimony and these findings from the trial led only to a presumption of his involvement. There is therefore a lingering doubt, on the basis of which he should be acquitted,” it adds.
Based on the foregoing, the conviction on Counts 1 and 2, which concerned the arson and the resulting damage, was overturned, and the defendant was acquitted and discharged of those charges. The conviction and six-month prison sentence for the third charge, which concerned a previous incident of setting a fire in the countryside, were upheld.
READ ALSO: Reversal in the Arakapa Fire Case: The 69-Year-Old Man Who Had Been Found Guilty Was Acquitted | AlphaNews
Source: CNA
