Filenews 2 February 2022 - by Michalis Hadjivasilis
Concern prevails among authorities following the Court of Appeal's catapult decision to acquit the 19-year-old British woman, who was convicted of a false allegation of gang rape in 2019 in Ayia Napa.
As one reads the majority decision, one finds oppressive the findings of the Court, about the errors of the Police and the Court that heard the case. The Police and the Legal Service are thoroughly studying the decision to decide whether there are grounds for new investigators to reopen the case. As stated yesterday in "F" by both these services, if the evaluation of the decision raises new issues, then the reopening of the case of gang rape will be studied together. However, such an undertaking will not be easy, since all those involved are abroad.
The Court of Appeal left no room for second thoughts and, referring to the Court of First Instance, listened to the way it handled the case. "The Court was not alerted in view of the particular circumstances, namely that a 19-year-old woman had been summoned in the afternoon to the offices of the ICF for additional testimony as a complainant, that six hours later she was interrogated, after midnight, as a suspect and that at 01:15 she allegedly made a voluntary statement, without the presence of a lawyer. In fact, while at 00:30, at the position of the prosecution, she had refused even to sign her rights and as Sergeant X characteristically mentioned... "she took them like that (her rights) nor did she open them and threw them back at me ''I don't sign anything'' and threw them towards me", that is, she appears completely negative, even aggressive, in 40 minutes she allegedly states 'I make a big mistake, I will tell you the truth what happened' and then the receipt of the deposit/confession". The Court also found that:
- It is an indisputable fact that the appellant was interrogated without first consulting a lawyer as to her rights, in particular the rights to remain silent and not to incriminate herself, and no lawyer was present during her interrogation.
- The Court of First Instance took into account the time in the video, but did not take into account that at the same time the other Israelites were not welcome. That is, it appears that the authorities engaged in an attempt to prove that the complaint was false, without taking into account other parameters, such as the testimony of the doctor who first examined the 19-year-old. Therefore, it is not the 19-year-old who allegedly resorted to the Police on her own, but the involvement of the Police arose on the doctor's initiative in view of the state of her allegations.
-The interventions of the Court were frequent and unacceptable, the defence was not allowed to question the wilfulness of the testimony of the British woman, so the conviction is considered as precarious without being rescued, under the circumstances, by the fact that the appellant was deemed unreliable.
Yesterday, the President of the Legal Council of DISY Christos Triantaphyllides in his announcement states that the Legal Service and the Chief of Police, should immediately study very carefully the decision and take the appropriate decisions and take the appropriate actions, if they consider that such actions are appropriate.
