Newsroom
A doctor and his wife have lost their appeal against convictions tied to the sale of medical equipment that should have been provided free to a patient, after the Court of Appeal upheld the original verdict.
The case involves a neurosurgeon at Nicosia General Hospital who persuaded a patient scheduled for hydrocephalus surgery, along with her family, to pay €1,500 for a specialized brain valve. He told them the device, supplied through his wife’s company, was better than the one offered by the hospital and would be used during the operation. In fact, the hospital provides such equipment at no cost.
Testimony showed that the money was handed to the doctor’s wife in a parking lot and no receipt was issued. The trial court considered the circumstances highly suspicious and described the exchange as secretive and similar to an illegal transaction.
The surgery eventually took place at the same hospital but was carried out by another doctor, while the accused only supervised. This detail weakened his claim that he had obtained an extra valve as a backup.
In their appeal, the couple argued that the trial was unfair and that the judge was not impartial. They pointed to the language used in the decision and alleged personal connections as evidence of bias. The appellate court rejected these claims, finding no objective reason to question the judge’s neutrality. It also said that strong or vivid language in a ruling does not, by itself, show bias.
They also argued that their defense was compromised when the trial court refused to delay the proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed this argument, noting that the case continued over several hearings and gave them enough time to prepare.
Another argument claimed that the prosecution could discourage doctors from doing their jobs out of fear of legal consequences. The court found no support for this concern and said it was not tied to the facts of the case.
However, the appellate judges did find a mistake in how the doctor’s sentence was calculated. The trial court had applied a stricter legal provision that was not in effect at the time of the offenses. After correcting this, the Court of Appeal reduced the sentences. The penalty for abuse of power was lowered from 32 months to 18 months, and the sentence for obtaining goods through false representations was reduced from 28 months to 22 months.
All other convictions remain unchanged, including those related to the sale of medical supplies and money laundering. The wife’s conviction as an accomplice was also upheld. The court concluded that the original decision was supported by the evidence and that the trial had been conducted fairly.
