The Court of Appeals overturned the defendant’s conviction and the 18- and 4-year prison sentences imposed on him in a case involving 72 kilograms of cannabis, ruling that the Limassol Criminal Court had not fully explained his rights to him prior to his testimony. As a result, it ruled that the trial “was not valid” and ordered that it be retried before the Criminal Court with a different panel of judges.
In a decision dated September 21, 2026, the Court of Appeals upheld the grounds for appeal, which concerned the manner in which the trial court had explained to the appellant his rights regarding his testimony.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Specifically, after determining that there was a prima facie case, the Criminal Court informed him that he could either testify under oath or exercise his right to remain silent. However, it did not inform him that he also had the right to make an unsworn statement without being cross-examined.
The Court of Appeals ruled that this omission was material, as the Criminal Court applied to the appellant the amendment to the relevant provision of the Criminal Procedure Law that took effect in April 2022, which abolished the defendant’s right to make a spontaneous statement.
In June 2022, when the Criminal Court explained the appellant’s rights to him, that specific amendment was in effect, but, according to the Court of Appeals, it could not be applied to this particular case, since the act for which he was charged, the filing of the case and the commencement of the trial had taken place before the change in the law.
“It is well established that a law is not considered to have retroactive effect unless it specifically provides for such effect or unless it concerns only procedural matters,” the Court of Appeals noted.
At the same time, it stated that “in the present case, the legislative provision to which the aforementioned amendment relates does not concern the procedural aspect of the explanation of a defendant’s rights, pursuant to Article 74(1)(c) of Chapter 155, but rather to the substantive part of that article concerning the rights of an accused person themselves at that stage of the proceedings.”
He further added that the Criminal Court “incorrectly applied the aforementioned amending law as if it had retroactive effect.”
The defendant had been found guilty by the Limassol Criminal Court in August 2022 on five of the six charges he faced. The charges included, among other things, conspiracy to unlawfully possess and possession with intent to supply, importation of a Class B controlled substance—specifically, 72 kilograms of cannabis—as well as possession and possession with intent to supply.
For the charge of possession with intent to distribute, the Criminal Court sentenced him to 18 years in prison, while for the charge of importation, it sentenced him to four years in prison.
The defendant filed an appeal both against the conviction, citing 11 grounds, and against the sentence, citing four grounds. The Court of Appeals, in examining the issue regarding his notification of his rights, ruled that the finding of this specific error was sufficient to lead to the annulment of the conviction and the sentence and, consequently, did not examine the remaining grounds for appeal.
At the same time, the Court of Appeals noted that, following the appellant’s testimony, the same Criminal Court allowed another defendant in the same case to make a statement under oath, granting his request and rejecting the Prosecution’s objection.
The fact that the appellant ultimately chose to testify under oath did not change the situation, according to the Court of Appeals. “The appellant’s choice to testify under oath could not have had any significance,” the ruling states, given that he had not previously been informed of all his options.
Furthermore, the Court of Appeals ruled that fully informing the defendant of his rights is an “imperative obligation of the court” and that failure to comply with the relevant provisions “invalidates the conviction.”
Consequently, it found “miscarriage of justice,” ruling that the trial was invalid, and overturned the appellant’s conviction as well as the sentence imposed.
“A miscarriage of justice has been established, the result of which can be nothing other than the annulment of the conviction and the imposed sentence due to the invalidity of the trial,” it stated.
Finally, he ordered a new trial for the appellant before the Criminal Court with a different panel of judges, “as soon as possible.”
SEE ALSO: Tragedy involving a 3-year-old: 37-year-old father pleads guilty to the death of his child | AlphaNews
Source: CNA
