Filenews 6 August 2025
Around 5.20 yesterday afternoon, a 48-year-old resident of Nicosia reported to the Police that, between 4 – 5 p.m., unknown persons, after breaking the window of his car, which was parked in an open area in Aradippou, stole his wife's bag from inside.
According to the complaint, the bag, which was on the floor of the passenger seat, contained a sum of money, several credit cards, a tablet and various personal documents and belongings.
According to the complaint, attempts were made to withdraw money through credit cards, but to no avail.
During the investigation of the case, a testimony emerged against a 55-year-old man from the Larnaca district, who was arrested on the basis of a court warrant and detained.
Police: Useful tips for protecting our property.
- Always lock the doors and windows of your car.
- Avoid parking in dark and secluded areas.
- Do not leave valuables exposed inside the car.
- In case you see something suspicious, contact the police or the local police station immediately or the Citizen's Hotline at 1460.
It was reported to the Police around 9 last night by a 21-year-old resident of Larnaca that, while half an hour earlier he was in the sea in the area of Finikoudes, a group of five people allegedly stole his bag which contained his mobile phone and a sum of money.
In the context of the investigation of the case, a testimony emerged against a 22-year-old, who was arrested on the basis of a court warrant and detained to facilitate the investigations.
In addition to the policing measures taken during the summer period to prevent theft incidents in coastal areas, as well as in mountain resorts and picnic areas, attention is recommended to the public and citizens are urged to take measures to more effectively protect their property.
Indicatively, the following three simple protection measures are mentioned:
- We carry to the beach only the necessary money we need
- We do not carry items of great value, such as jewellery, watches, telephones
- We do not leave our personal belongings unattended. Our property must be constantly in our field of vision.
In general, the public is urged to be vigilant and to cooperate closely with the Police and in case they notice suspicious persons or vehicles, to immediately inform the local Police Station or contact the Citizen's Communication Line at 1460.
* * * * * *
Members of the Police went to the spot where, according to the examinations carried out at the scene, three persons aged 62, 35 and 30 met with three other persons aged 52, 28 and 14 years. The above persons clashed with each other due to professional differences.
According to the data in the possession of the Police, inside the 35-year-old's vehicle there were metal pipes that were allegedly used by both teams during the clash.
All of the above persons went to the Limassol General Hospital where they were provided with first aid and were discharged.
Then, they were all summoned to the Agios Ioannis Police Station, except for the minor where, after being interrogated, they were accused in writing of the offenses of fighting, disturbance and possession of an offensive instrument.
The Agios Ioannis Police Station continues the examinations
* * * * * *
Not a single day did the Court of Appeal differ from the sentence of 20 years in prison imposed by the Larnaca-Famagusta Assize Court on a grandfather who sexually abused his minor granddaughter.
The convicted person had filed an appeal against both his conviction and the amount of his sentence. The Court of Appeal, composed of Judges C.V. Charalambous, M. Papadopoulou and M.G. Pikis, ruled that this case is one of the most serious cases examined.
After a hearing, the appellant was found guilty of: (a) eight counts of sexual abuse of a child abusing a position of trust, (b) eight counts of rape, (c) four counts of sexual abuse of a child by sexual acts other than intercourse, abusing a position of trust, (d) four counts of indecent assault against a woman, (e) one count of incest and (f) one count of assault with actual harm.
The complainant in all the charges was the minor granddaughter of the appellant, born in 2009. The Court sentenced him to 20 years in prison, accepting the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
The conviction is challenged with 13 grounds of appeal, most of which relate to the way in which the testimony was evaluated. Both the process of evaluation and extraction of findings, as well as the failure to seek corroborating evidence, are challenged. In addition, suggestions are made that the fair trial has been violated and that the decision is unjustified. The sentences imposed, with higher sentences of 20 years, are also challenged as manifestly excessive. The acts for which the appellant was found guilty span a period from December 2020 to July 2021.
The Court of Appeal rejected the defense's position that the offenses were committed by someone else, and stressed that "we do not hesitate to mention that the present case is one of the most serious of its kind.
The appellant was the grandfather of the 11-year-old complainant, a person to whom she sought protection, especially since her parents were divorced and her living conditions indicated her neglect. Instead of such protection, the appellant, abusing the trust that the young child showed him, used this trust to satisfy his perversions. It cannot but be disgusting that at the same time the appellant explained to the complainant that with what he did to her and the other illegal acts he himself was committing, he allegedly preserved her "purity" for her future husband at the same time. Article 19(c) of Law 91(I)/14 provides that where the offence was committed by a member of the victim's family, or by a person who has abused a position of trust, influence or power, it will be taken into account by the Court as an aggravating factor".
In its decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Court of Assize correctly recorded that the case brings to the surface a sick and odious behaviour that undermines the foundations of the family as we know it.
He further emphasized the artful way that the appellant used to proceed with his heinous acts by presenting them as a game, the continuous and systematic abuse of the complainant and the fact that once the complainant resisted, he hit her, causing her real bodily harm, while on other occasions he told her that they would not go for a walk with the dogs if she did not give in.
"We do not agree that the penalties imposed are manifestly excessive. As mentioned above, this is a particularly serious case that causes revulsion. The imposition of dissuasive penalties was appropriate," the three judges concluded.
* * * * * *
Five minutes before midnight, a kiosk employee in Klirou needed them when he was confronted by two hooded men.
Specifically, it was reported to the Police by a kiosk employee in Klirou that, five minutes before midnight, two persons wearing black clothes, hoods and gloves entered the kiosk.
According to the complaint, one of them threatened the employee with a knife while the other person stole a sum of money from the cash register. Immediately afterwards, the two unknown persons left the scene on foot.
* * * * * *
Around 11 o'clock last night, members of the Famagusta Police Unit conducted a search based on a court warrant in the apartment of a 28-year-old visitor, in Ayia Napa.
During the investigation, two half-smoked cigarettes with industrialized tobacco mixed with cannabis were found, a nylon package containing cannabis plant material weighing approximately 100 grams, eight nylon bags containing cannabis plant material weighing approximately four grams, a nylon bag containing white powder believed to be cocaine weighing approximately half a gram, a nylon bag containing sliced MDMA tablets, a precision scale with traces of hemp plant matter;
The 28-year-old was arrested for a flagrant offense and was detained.
* * * * * *
The Court of Appeal upheld the 11-year prison sentence imposed by the Paphos Assize Court in 2022 on a stepfather, who was found guilty of 12 counts of sexual abuse of his partner's underage daughter.
The charges relate to offences committed between 2017 and 9.5.2019, against the minor, born around the end of 2009 while the appellant was her mother's cohabitant. The minor, being an elementary school student, told her mother what she was experiencing, after she took her things and left her roommate's house, after a fight and after she had been informed that he was having an affair with another woman.
The minor spoke about the touching by the stepfather, that he showed her on her mobile phone or on TV and told what she experienced when her mother was away for work. The victim, with tears in her eyes, when asked why she did not speak earlier, said that "the defendant told her that if her mother found out, she would get angry with both of them and beat them." Also, that she was afraid to speak out because "she saw that their relationship was good and she didn't want to upset her."
The defendant denied all the charges and therefore a hearing was held during which he was found guilty. With an appeal, he turned against the conviction and the sentence, while the Attorney General in a cross-appeal considered the sentence to be insufficient. The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding the appellant's conviction to be justified and the sentence to be sufficient.
The Court of Appeal noted in the decision of Judges Charalambous, Papadopoulou and Piki, "the exacerbation which is unfortunately observed in this nature of crimes that have become a perishing wound and scourge of society, justifying the imposition of particularly severe penalties for the purposes of deterrence.
After rejecting the grounds of appeal against the conviction, he agreed with the aggravating factors that counted against the appellant, namely that he was a cohabitant of the complainant's mother, they lived in the same house and there was a relationship of complete trust. "In order to commit his unacceptable and illegal acts, he used various 'techniques such as fear, punishment and baiting images or videos'.
The decision highlights the size and weight of the offense, as well as the effects on the personality of the minor, who suffered a post-traumatic disorder, according to the accepted testimony of the clinical psychologist. Importance was also given to the large age difference between the minor and the perpetrator (36 years old), the Court of Appeal noted.
