Newsroom
A father convicted of raping his underage daughter has failed in his attempt to overturn the verdict, after the Cyprus Court of Appeal rejected his appeal and increased parts of his sentence.
In a ruling dated 25 February 2026, the appellate court dismissed all grounds raised by the defendant, while partially accepting a counter-appeal filed by the Attorney General. As a result, the prison terms for the most serious counts were raised to 15 years each.
Background of the case
The man was originally prosecuted on a 15-count indictment involving his minor daughter as the complainant. The charges included rape, multiple counts of sexual abuse of a child under both the Criminal Code and Law 91(I)/2014, incest, domestic violence offences, abduction-related charges, assault causing actual bodily harm, common assault and public insult.
At trial, the Assize Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt on most counts, acquitting him on three charges, partly because two overlapped with offences for which he had already been convicted.
The court imposed concurrent prison sentences ranging from 10 days to 13 years, treating the offences, committed over roughly four years, as a single course of criminal conduct. It also ordered five years of post-release supervision and banned the defendant for a decade after release from working with or being in environments involving children.
Appeals by both sides
Both the defendant and the Attorney General challenged the original ruling. The defence put forward eight grounds of appeal, arguing that errors in the trial process led to the conviction. Among other claims, the defendant disputed the credibility findings regarding the complainant and argued that the five-year delay in reporting the offences violated his right to a fair trial and proper defence.
The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, holding that the trial court was entitled to consider the complainant credible and that the constitutional fair-trial provisions cited by the appellant did not apply in this case. The appellate judges also stressed that it was the defendant’s burden to demonstrate any actual prejudice to his defence resulting from the delay.
Attorney General’s challenge to the sentences
The Attorney General focused on the severity of the penalties, arguing that the original sentences for the rape and child-abuse counts were clearly insufficient given the gravity of the offences and the statutory framework, which allows for life imprisonment.
The prosecution highlighted several aggravating factors: the familial relationship, the defendant’s position of trust and authority, the significant age gap, the absence of the child’s mother from the home, and the serious psychological harm suffered by the victim, including post-traumatic stress.
Court of Appeal’s ruling
The appellate court agreed in part with the prosecution, describing the circumstances of the case as exceptionally serious and among the most severe of their kind. It found that the trial court had undervalued the aggravating factors when setting the sentences for counts 1, 2 and 3.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal increased those concurrent sentences from 13 years to 15 years each. It declined to interfere with the remaining penalties, noting that although they were lenient, they were not manifestly inadequate.
The court ordered that the concurrent sentences continue to be calculated from 9 September 2022.
