Newsroom
The Court of Appeal has upheld a prison sentence imposed on a police officer convicted of indecent assault against a female colleague, rejecting appeals filed by both the defendant and the Attorney General. The ruling confirms a three-month custodial sentence without suspension, as originally ordered by the trial court.
The case stems from incidents that occurred between 2018 and 2019, when both the complainant and the accused were serving as newly recruited members of the Police. At first instance before the Nicosia District Court, the officer faced four charges: indecent assault, sexual harassment, and two counts of common assault involving the same complainant on separate occasions.
Following a full hearing, the trial court found the officer guilty. He was sentenced to three months’ immediate imprisonment for the indecent assault and one month for each of the two common assault charges, with all sentences to run concurrently. No penalty was imposed for the sexual harassment charge, as it arose from the same facts as the indecent assault. The court ruled that suspending the sentence was not justified.
Both sides appealed. The defendant challenged the safety of the conviction and the severity of the sentence, while the Attorney General argued that the sentence was too lenient given the seriousness of the offences.
In reviewing the case, the Court of Appeal examined the trial court’s assessment of the evidence in detail. The complainant testified that the accused began sending her repeated messages via mobile phone and social media in early 2018, despite her making it clear she did not wish to maintain contact. During a break at the Police Academy, she alleged that the officer touched her waist and buttocks as she was leaving a classroom. Shocked, she did not react immediately but later confided in colleagues.
After both officers completed their training and were assigned to operational units, further incidents occurred. The complainant reported being deliberately struck with an elbow on two occasions in 2019, despite asking the accused to stop. These later encounters ultimately prompted her to file a formal complaint.
The appellant argued that the trial court had wrongly accepted the complainant’s testimony, failed to properly address inconsistencies in prosecution evidence, and overlooked alleged deficiencies in the police investigation. He also claimed that the complainant had been coached prior to testifying.
The Court of Appeal rejected all these arguments, finding that the trial court had carefully and thoroughly analyzed the evidence and provided clear reasoning for its credibility findings. The appellate judges concluded that there were no material errors in the evaluation of witness testimony, nor any indication of improper witness preparation or investigative shortcomings.
Turning to sentencing, the Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s claim that the prison term was excessive, as well as the Attorney General’s contention that it was unduly light. The judges emphasized the seriousness of offences of a sexual nature, particularly when committed by a serving police officer against a colleague while on duty.
The court noted that the trial judge had properly weighed both aggravating and mitigating factors, including the passage of time since the offences, the officer’s clean criminal record, and the potential professional consequences of imprisonment. At the same time, it stressed the need for deterrence and the importance of maintaining public confidence in law enforcement.
Concluding that the sentence fell within acceptable limits and was supported by sound legal reasoning, the Court of Appeal found no basis for intervention. All appeals were dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were confirmed in full.
