Filenews 21 March 2026
The presence and action of the Police last night was intense, throughout Cyprus, with organized patrols in key points of urban areas, with the aim of preventing serious criminal acts, ensuring public order and increasing the sense of security of the public.
As a result of the preventive policing operations, three persons were arrested for various offences, such as theft from a residence and illegal stay on the territory of the Republic of Cyprus.
As part of these operations, during the night, 678 vehicles were stopped for inspection and a total of 907 drivers and passengers were checked. At the same time, 41 inspections of premises were carried out, with the aim of dealing with phenomena of delinquency. These audits resulted in a total of seven complaints.
During traffic checks carried out, 242 complaints were made, concerning various traffic violations. Of these, 42 complaints from drivers for violating the speed limit stand out. 330 tests were carried out for driving under the influence of alcohol, during which 24 drivers were found positive. As part of the police investigations, 11 vehicles were detained.
Coordinated policing operations, for the prevention and suppression of crime, continue daily, with an enhanced police presence, targeted controls and immediate operational action, in order to protect citizens and ensure public order.
* * * * * *
The Supreme Court granted permission to register an application for the issuance of a Privileged Certiorari Warrant, by its decision dated March 17, 2026, in relation to a search warrant issued in February 2026 in a casino in the province of Larnaca. The application is linked to the investigated case of detecting videos on a mobile phone depicting torture and the decision makes extensive reference to audiovisual material, which depicts persons being detained against their will and being subjected to violence.
According to the decision of the Supreme Court, the applicant, the manager of the premises, seeks to challenge the search warrant, arguing, among other things, that there was insufficient testimony linking the premises to the offenses under investigation.
The Supreme Court recalls that in order to be granted such permission, "the applicant will have to substantiate a debatable case", noting that privileged warrants "are granted exceptionally and when a lack or excess of jurisdiction is found, either an error of the Law, or a violation of the rules of natural justice".
As recorded in the oath that accompanied the Police's request for the issuance of the search warrant at the premises, the authorities were investigating a case against the applicant and two other persons concerning the offenses of grievous bodily harm, failure to prevent a felony, assault causing actual bodily harm, common assault, carrying a knife, possession of an offensive weapon and carrying a weapon to incite terror, which were allegedly committed in 2025.
According to the decision, "in the context of investigating a case regarding the above offenses, as well as the offenses of illegal possession and transport of explosives, extortion, claiming property with threats, participation in a criminal organization, participation and acceptance of the commission of offenses and threats, which were allegedly committed in January 2026, at the time of the applicant's arrest, His two mobile phones were taken as evidence."
"During the forensic examination and inspection of the electronic data of one of them, a large number of photos and videos were found in which six persons on different dates are depicted being in the same place that refers to a room-office with a sofa, chairs and a coffee table, against their will, and both the Applicant and another person shouting at them, threatening and hitting them with their hands and other offensive weapons, causing them bodily harm. The Applicant appears on two occasions to be holding a pistol which he put in the mouth of one person. The oath details each of the videos, which appear to have been created between 8.6.2025 and 19.9.2025, their duration and what exactly they depict. In all the videos, the faces appear to be on the same couch," the Supreme continues.
However, the critical issue for the Supreme Court was not the existence of the videos, but whether there was a sufficient connection between the specific premises and the events.
As pointed out in the decision, the only reference in the warrant that connects the space with the events in question is that "from examinations carried out, it was found that all the above videos have been recorded in areas of the premises-casino".
The Court considers this wording insufficient, noting that "this reference appears general and vague, as on the one hand it refers to more than one "place" where the various incidents allegedly took place, and on the other hand no information is given as to what these examinations consist of and how they showed the specific premises".
Furthermore, it is stated that the fact that the applicant is the manager of the premises "does not seem to satisfy, in itself, the creation of a connection between the space and the offenses under investigation and the wanted objects".
"At this stage, it appears that no such testimony had been put forward that would lead the Court itself to the finding of a connection between the premises and the facts, but only satisfied itself with the position of the sworn testator about it," explains the Supreme Court.
Based on the above, the Supreme Court concludes that "a debatable case is raised" as to certain reasons put forward by the applicant, namely in relation to the sufficiency of the testimony and the necessity and existence of reasonable cause for the issuance of the warrant.
On the contrary, the applicant's claim regarding the purpose of taking DNA samples was rejected, with the Court finding that the warrant was finally issued "for the purpose provided for in the Law".
Therefore, permission was given to the applicant to register an application for the issuance of a privileged Certiorari warrant in relation to the search warrant of the premises, which is expected to be examined at a later stage.
* * * * * *
Suspended sentences were imposed yesterday by the Three-Member Children's Court of Limassol on two underage high school students, who admitted to creating and disseminating pornographic material through artificial intelligence (AI) applications, which depicted the faces of their classmates and a teacher.
The case was reported in November 2025 and took the path of Justice, where the defendants admitted the charges related to the production and distribution of pornographic material, as well as child pornography. The Three-Member Children's Court imposed sentences of 12 months on one minor and 9 months on the second, with a three-year suspension. At the same time, conditions such as supervision by a guardian officer and 120 hours of unpaid community work were imposed. According to the facts of the case, the two minors used an artificial intelligence application to create pornographic images, placing the faces of their classmates and the teacher on them.
The photos were distributed to groups of students, as a result of which the school management and then the Police were immediately informed. It is recalled that a similar case was brought before the Court of Dhekelia, in October 2024, where a 14-year-old student had circulated edited photos of his classmates in a high school in the province of Larnaca, causing disruption and interference between the management and the Police of the British Bases. The student was found guilty after admission and was given a conditional warning, with the possibility of reinstating the case in case of a repeat offense within three years.
This case highlights the seriousness of the use of AI technology by minors to create and distribute explicit content, the need to prevent, supervise and educate students on digital security issues, as well as to protect victims from psychological pressure and harm to their personal lives. The immediate intervention of the school and judicial authorities was decisive in dealing with the phenomenon.
