Filenews 1 May 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.
The result of the preventive policing operations was the arrest of three persons, for various offenses including illegal entry, illegal possession of property and illegal possession of drugs.
During the night, 522 vehicles were stopped for inspection and 727 drivers and passengers were checked. At the same time, 42 inspections of premises were carried out, from which 13 complaints emerged.
During traffic checks carried out, 174 complaints were made about various traffic violations, of which 55 concern speeding. A total of 203 alcohol tests were carried out during which five drivers were found positive, while two drivers were found positive in a preliminary drug test. Also, as part of the police examinations, ten 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.
* * * * * *
Members of YKAN and YDAP went yesterday to the apartment of a 34-year-old man in Larnaca, against whom an arrest and search warrant was pending under a court warrant, as part of an investigation into a case of illegal possession of drugs.
When the members of the Police entered the apartment, four persons were found in it. After informing them of their status, two of them jumped out of the window of the apartment, which was on the second floor, and ended up on the ground where they were injured.
They are a 34-year-old man and a 29-year-old woman, who were transported by ambulance to the Larnaca General Hospital, for treatment since the man has external injuries while the woman has an open arm fracture.
From the examinations that followed, it was found that both were illegally residing in the territory of the Republic of Cyprus. The 34-year-old was arrested under the court warrant pending against him, while the woman was arrested for a flagrante delicto.
As for the other two persons inside the apartment, it was found that they are two 34-year-olds.
Subsequently, a search was carried out inside the apartment where a total of 25 bags containing dry plant matter with a total gross weight of about 600 grams, a bag containing dry plant matter with a total gross weight of 346 grams, a large number of various pills, 100 bottles containing an unknown substance, seven mobile phones as well as the sum of €815 were found.
Three of the above persons were re-arrested by virtue of court warrants, while nothing reprehensible emerged against a 34-year-old man.
This morning they are expected to appear before a Judge for a request for their detention, a process which will be held at the Larnaca General Hospital.
YKAN continues the examinations.
* * * * * *
Regarding the possibility of kidnapping a foreign person, the Larnaca TAE, according to information from the Police, managed to communicate via teleconference with the alleged kidnapping victim and it was found that he is free and was not kidnapped by any person.
According to the Larnaca Police Department, the 22-year-old was attacked by his compatriots, including a person against whom an arrest warrant is pending.
The Larnaca Police Department clarifies that an attempt was made to present himself to the police voluntarily, or the police to assist in his transfer to any police station, but does not want to cooperate as he resides illegally in the territory of the Republic and wants to avoid possible arrest.
The examinations continue by the TAE of Larnaca to identify both the perpetrators and the victim. It is recalled that the Police issued a statement stating that Anukul, aged 22, from India, is absent from his place of residence in the area of Agioi Anargyroi, in Larnaca, while according to data under investigation, he is said to be the victim of a kidnapping, committed between the dates 28 and 29/04/2026, in the province of Larnaca.
* * * * * *
A 34-year-old man, who was wanted in connection with an investigated case of knife attack and injury, with the victim being a 44-year-old man, was located and arrested by members of the Police.
The 34-year-old was located by members of the Police and arrested by virtue of a court warrant, shortly after 3.15 pm on 30/04/2026, in the province of Nicosia.
According to the evidence under investigation, the attack was committed around 06:40 in the morning, on April 28, when a man, who was wandering on Prodromou Avenue, in Strovolos, after a confrontation, attacked with a knife, injuring the 44-year-old in the abdomen and right forearm.
* * * * * *
The Court of Appeal put a definitive end to the attempt to overturn the conviction for a fatal traffic accident, rejecting the driver's appeal and ruling that the sentence of 24 months in prison and the three-month deprivation of his driver's license imposed on him by the Limassol District Court was fully correct and justified, without identifying any legal or factual error that justifies intervention. It is noted that the driver had admitted to the crime of causing death due to reckless or reckless behaviour.
The case was examined by a three-member Court of Appeal, consisting of judges M. Amiza, St. Christodoulidou-Messiou and I. Stylianidou, which issued a unanimous decision.
With two grounds of appeal, the appellant challenged both the legality of the first-instance decision and the severity of the sentence, arguing that the Court relied on incorrect factual data and did not correctly assess the mitigating factors.
With regard to the first ground of appeal, the appellant claimed that the Court of First Instance erred in estimating the speed of the vehicle at the time of the collision, considering that it was approximately 98 kilometers per hour, based on a photograph of the speed index after the accident. The defence argued that its position was for a speed of around 80 kilometres and that there was no clear conclusion on this issue.
The Court of Appeal rejected this position, holding that the minutes of the first-instance proceedings showed an acceptance by the defense that the speed at the time of the collision was about 90 kilometers, which did not leave open the issue of controversy to impose a separate fact-finding procedure. At the same time, the Court noted that even a deviation of between 90 and 98 km does not constitute a material error capable of reversing the first-instance finding, particularly in the light of the 65 km limit.
With regard to a second allegation of incorrect assessment of drug use, the appellant argued that the use of cannabis 1–2 days before the accident was not a causal cause of the conflict and that the Court of First Instance wrongly considered it as an aggravating factor. The Court of Appeal also rejected this argument, holding that the Court of First Instance was right to take the fact into account in the overall assessment of the risk of driving, pointing out that the choice to drive in such circumstances is an essential element of negligence.
In relation to the second ground of appeal, the appellant argued that the sentence of 24 months was manifestly excessive, that sufficient weight was not given to his clean criminal record and his personal circumstances, in particular to his relationship with his minor daughter, who had lost her mother in the same accident and was in the care of his family.
The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance carried out a correct and balanced weighing of all factors, pointing out that it had taken into account both the mitigating elements and the seriousness of the offense and the need for deterrence. He also underlined that fatal road collisions are a constant social problem that justifies a strict punitive approach.
Finally, the Court also rejected the allegation of incorrect enforcement of the deprivation of a driving license, holding that it was within the limits of the discretion of the Court of First Instance and there were no special reasons justifying its reduction or non-imposition. It was pointed out that no evidence of an excessive professional or personal burden from the deprivation was brought before the Court of First Instance.
Based on the above, the Court of Appeal concluded that there was no legal or factual error that would justify its intervention, rejecting the appeal in its entirety and upholding the first instance decision.
* * * * * *
The Police are investigating a case of conspiracy to commit a felony and misdemeanor, forgery, circulation of a forged document, impersonation and assisting third-country nationals to enter the Republic illegally. For the purpose of facilitating the investigations, members of the Aliens and Immigration Service proceeded to arrest four persons, who were detained.
The investigation of the case began on April 24, 2026, when a 35-year-old foreigner arrived at Larnaca airport from abroad, who during the passport control presented an entry permit which was fake. After the real details of the 35-year-old were secured, it was found that his details are registered in the Interpol database, as a prohibited immigrant.
From the investigation of the case, testimony was obtained according to which, from September 2025, on various occasions, with the mediation of a 40-year-old woman, she paid a 51-year-old and a 41-year-old, a sum of €6,000, in order to secure a fake entry permit into the Republic.
Arrest warrants were obtained against all the above persons, pursuant to which they were arrested and detained, by court order, to facilitate investigations.
The Larnaca Police Department is investigating the case.
* * * * * *
A case of intense confrontation between ex-spouses, which included threats and an incident in a public place, reached the Court of Appeal, with the convicted attempting to overturn the verdict against him, but without being able to convince the Court, which upheld his guilt. Specifically, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal filed by a man against his conviction for assault and threat against his ex-wife, upholding the first-instance decision of the Famagusta District Court.
The case concerned incidents that occurred in February 2020, with the appellant facing four charges, including assault, causing a disturbance in a public place, and threatening. The court of first instance found him guilty of three of them and imposed prison sentences of a total of nine months, which were suspended for a period of three years, as well as a fine of €100.
The appellant challenged the conviction by invoking eight grounds of appeal, focusing mainly on the evaluation of the testimony and arguing that the court of first instance wrongly accepted the complainant's version and rejected his own.
The Court of Appeal, examining the case as a whole, ruled that the appellant's complaints are unfounded and are based on a fragmentary reading of the first instance decision. As pointed out, the court of first instance proceeded to a full and reasoned evaluation of the testimony of all those involved, reaching findings that were reasonable and permissible based on all the evidence.
Central to the case was played by the complainant's testimony, which the court of first instance found to be reliable, noting that her testimony was consistent, detailed, and reasonable, even under the pressure of cross-examination. On the contrary, the defendant's version was rejected as a general denial without convincing evidence.
The Court of Appeal recalled that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is primarily the task of the court of first instance, which has the discretion to directly monitor their conduct during the proceedings. He stressed that intervention by the Court of Appeal is justified only in cases of obvious error or absurd conclusions, something that was not found in this case.
Regarding the allegations of lack of supporting testimony, the Court held that the court of first instance was right to rely on the testimony of the complainant, as under the circumstances it was not possible to secure additional testimony, while she was considered reliable. It was pointed out that the law allows conviction on the basis of the victim's testimony, if it is accepted.
The Court of Appeal also rejected arguments relating to individual issues, such as maintenance payments, the type of appellant's vehicle or the absence of specific witnesses, finding that they did not substantially affect the merits of the case.
In relation to the accusation of threatening, the Court held that the appellant's words to his ex-wife, in the context of an intense confrontation, could reasonably be perceived as threatening, rejecting the claim that the relevant version was absurd.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal found that the first instance decision was fully reasoned and was based on a proper assessment of the testimony and the facts. Therefore, it rejected all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant.
* * * * * *
An explosion occurred on Thursday night in a house in Paphos, causing disruption and material damage.
According to the Police, around 22:30 information was received about a strong explosion in the residence of a couple aged 74 and 75. Members of the Paphos Police Department immediately rushed to the scene, who cordoned off the scene and proceeded to preliminary examinations.
From the first investigations, it was found that the explosion occurred in the courtyard of the house, as a result of which the windows of the house were damaged. Fortunately, no injuries were reported.
During further examinations carried out today, it emerged that the explosion was due to a defensive military grenade.
Various items were received from the scene, which are expected to be sent for scientific examinations.
The Paphos Police Department continues the investigations, while all possibilities are being examined.
