The Court of Appeals increased the prison sentence of a Somali national from two to three years in a domestic violence case, ruling that the sentence imposed on him at the trial court level was “manifestly inadequate” in light of the seriousness of the offenses and the need to impose deterrent sentences.
The decision was issued on September 24, 2026, following an appeal by the Attorney General against the sentence imposed by the Nicosia Criminal Court.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
As stated in the decision, the defendant had pleaded guilty before the Criminal Court to five charges involving threats, assault causing actual bodily harm, deprivation of liberty, joint assault, and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of his partner. The Criminal Court imposed an immediate two-year prison sentence for the charge of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, without imposing additional sentences for the remaining charges, as the facts of those charges were encompassed within the same conduct.
According to the facts of the case, the first incident of violence occurred in the apartment where the couple lived, in March 2025. Following an argument between the defendant and his partner when he asked her to drive him in her car to buy drugs, the man repeatedly assaulted her.
The violence and the blows she received from the defendant to her body and neck are described in detail, causing her to lose consciousness for about five minutes at one point. When the woman regained consciousness, the defendant continued to assault her and told her that he would go to the police to file a complaint against her, claiming that he was a minor and that she had been abusing him. The woman urged him to go to the police so that she could escape from the apartment. He then used a small knife to intimidate her and also struck her with a charger cord.
Afterward, the woman attempted to report the incident to the police, and the defendant accompanied her, though he denied having struck her. When she tried again to report him to the police, he got into her car and, while sitting in the passenger seat, turned the steering wheel, causing the car to change direction.
The woman stopped the car and tried to get away, but the defendant struck her in the face. She immediately got out of the car and started running. The defendant chased her and forced her back into the vehicle, compelling her to drive toward the apartment.
When they arrived at the apartment, the woman managed to escape again and flagged down a passing vehicle, asking the driver to take her to a police station. Police officers then escorted her to Nicosia General Hospital, where bruises and abrasions were found on her face as well as on various parts of her body.
The Attorney General argued on appeal that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, as it did not reflect the seriousness and extent of the offenses, nor the need for strict and deterrent penalties in cases of domestic violence.
The Court of Appeals noted that its authority to intervene in a sentence imposed at first instance is exercised when the sentence is objectively “manifestly inadequate” or “manifestly excessive,” or when a fundamental error has been committed.
In this case, the Court of Appeals ruled that there was a disparity between the severity of the offenses and the sentence imposed.
As stated in the decision, “the circumstances of the case at hand were particularly serious,” both with regard to the defendant’s actions and the duration of his conduct.
The Court of Appeals further noted that the violence was not limited to a single incident but was prolonged and repetitive—factors that the Criminal Court had already recognized as aggravating circumstances.
Regarding the Criminal Court’s findings, the Court of Appeals stated that “its conclusion regarding the severity of the sentence imposed, viewed objectively and not as a subjective opinion of the members of the Court of Appeals, is not commensurate with the seriousness of the offenses, the prevalence of domestic violence, and the need to impose deterrent sentences.”
At the same time, he emphasized the importance of the deterrent function of punishment in cases of domestic violence, noting that violence within personal and family relationships cannot be tolerated and must be dealt with strictly.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals ruled that its intervention was “necessary,” since, as it explained, “the imposed prison sentence of two years is clearly insufficient.” “Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the imposed sentence should be replaced with a three-year prison sentence,” it added.
Source: CNA
