Filenews 25 March 2025
Both the Police officer who was accused of the offences of interference in a judicial process, abuse of power and fraud, as well as abuse of trust by a public official, as well as his co-accused, who was facing the charge of interference in a judicial procedure, were acquitted and acquitted of all charges. Both were jointly charged with the charges of conspiracy to commit misdemeanors and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and influence witnesses.
The two defendants denied the charges they faced and the case was brought to a hearing in 2024, where 8 witnesses were summoned and testified, all police officers serving in the Limassol Police Department.
The case dates back to June 2018, when, according to the details of the offenses, the defendants were reported to have conspired to intervene in a judicial proceeding concerning an accident that occurred in Trachoni and with the son of the 2nd defendant involved, in order to divert the course of the case to justice.
Specifically, the Police officer was accused of having asked in June 2018, in the presence of the 2nd accused, from another police officer who was examining the accident, to take an investigative testimony and to accuse the other driver involved in writing, in order to intimidate him and close the case of the traffic offenses that arose against the son of the 2nd accused, as well as obstructing the police officer in the investigation of the road accident, resulting in the deviation of the course of justice.
It should be noted that from the road accident there was an interruption of the course of the motorcycle driven by the son of the 2nd defendant by the other driver of the vehicle, while the motorcyclist at the time in question was a minor and had neither a license to drive a motorcycle of large displacement, nor a safety certificate, he was driving without a helmet and without registration plates.
After a long process, the Limassol District Court, in its decision today, ruled that the offences against the two defendants are not substantiated, acquitting and acquitting them of all charges.
The decision notes that "from the testimony presented by the prosecution, it is noted from the outset that there is no evidence that proves that, essentially, for the present moment, the 2nd defendant asked the officer to influence M.C. 2 in any way, in order to close the case of the traffic accident or the traffic offenses resulting from it, against the son of the second accused".
It is worth noting that the police officer who investigated the accident and was the main prosecution witness, stated before the Court that he was pressured to make a complaint against the accused officer by other officers and that he was used since the above persons allegedly had differences with the specific officer.
The decision, which runs to 68 pages, concludes by stating that "The prosecution's case did not proceed on the basis that the pressure exerted on M.C. 2 might have affected the investigation conducted in relation to the road accident, but it was specified that it would have affected the case under consideration in relation to the traffic offences committed by the son of the 2nd accused, which, as well, it constituted common ground as to how much it would be affected by the eventual closure of the traffic accident case, since it was two independent files, given that the son of the second defendant had no responsibility, as judged by M.K. 2 for the traffic accident".
The two defendants were represented by lawyers Yiannis Nearchou and Maria Neophytou.
