The Court of Appeals imposed a harsher prison sentence on a 26-year-old man for setting a vehicle on fire in Nicosia, increasing it from one to two years, as it ruled that the jealousy that motivated the act could not be considered a mitigating factor. However, the court rejected the Attorney General’s second ground of appeal regarding the suspension of the sentence, which remains in effect.
According to the Court of Appeals’ decision, dated October 12, 2026, the respondent had pleaded guilty before the Nicosia District Court, which sentenced him to one year of imprisonment, suspended, for arson of a motor vehicle. The Attorney General filed an appeal, arguing that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that the trial court had erred in ordering its suspension.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Based on the facts of the case, in November 2023, following an incident that occurred in August of that same year, the defendant took a container of gasoline from the basement of the apartment building where he lived and went to a parking lot in Nicosia, where the vehicle was located, and set it on fire. He then discarded the container and his clothes in a location in his neighborhood. At the same time, it is noted that the defendant committed the offense in the heat of the moment, driven by feelings of jealousy and anger.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court’s approach was incorrect; the trial court had held that, because the arson was committed in the heat of the moment and without premeditation, it could be distinguished from cases of this specific type “in the sense that it does not fall within the scope of a premeditated act intended to intimidate or to achieve, for the benefit of the Defendant or other persons, ulterior motives.”
“The time that elapsed between the respondent’s initial outburst of anger and the events of the day the offense was committed, as well as the time it took for the defendant to plan and commit the offense, do not justify the above conclusion of the trial court that the offense was committed “in the heat of the moment,” the decision states.
The court also noted that the arson was committed at 1:30 a.m. in a parking lot in downtown Nicosia, posing a danger to the public and nearby property. “It is evident that the circumstances under which the offense was committed constitute an aggravating factor, which the trial court failed to mention and take into account,” it added.
Furthermore, citing relevant case law, the Court of Appeals noted that arson is a serious offense due to the risks it poses to property and human life.
“Nor do we consider the fact that the appellant committed the offense out of jealousy toward the person in question to be a mitigating factor,” the court noted.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the original sentence was not commensurate with the seriousness of the offense and the need to impose deterrent penalties. In setting the sentence at two years’ imprisonment, it took into account, among other things, the 26-year-old’s clean criminal record, his immediate admission of guilt, and his full and prompt compensation for the damage caused.
Regarding the suspension of the sentence, the Court of Appeals ruled that the convicted person’s personal circumstances, his genuine remorse, and his subsequent conduct justified maintaining the suspension.
The Attorney General’s appeal was, therefore, partially upheld, with the sentence increased to two years’ imprisonment; however, with regard to the suspension of the sentence, the first-instance decision remained in force.
