Pafos Live 25 September 2026
A female teacher who serves in a primary school in a community in the province of Paphos complained that she was attacked by a 40-year-old owner of a furniture store.
According to her complaint, she was first verbally attacked, while then the 40-year-old, according to the complainant, hit her in the face and broke her myopia glasses. According to the information collected by the police, the businesswoman and the teacher had differences over products bought by the teacher and met yesterday morning outside the school unit to discuss and resolve their differences.
After the incident, the teacher went to the hospital where she was found to have bruises and abrasions, while the 40-year-old, also a Greek Cypriot, was arrested and taken into custody.
* * * * * *
Two more cases of electronic fraud with false phone messages for alleged payment of extrajudicial fines are being investigated by the police in Paphos.
On September 22, a 37-year-old woman complained that she received a phone message regarding an allegedly unpaid out-of-court fine of €60, related to a traffic violation. The 37-year-old followed the electronic link mentioned in the message and entered her bank card details on a website, in order to repay the alleged out-of-court fine. Then, after the transaction was completed, the 37-year-old found that her bank account was debited with a payment of €2,000 .
Two new similar cases were reported yesterday with victims a 35-year-old Greek Cypriot from whom they extorted a sum of €795 and a 29-year-old foreigner resident of Paphos from whom they extorted a sum of €1025.
On the occasion of the new cases, the Police informs the public again that they never communicate with citizens in this way or through any other communication platform to call on citizens to pay any fines or for any other reason.
Public caution is advised, especially when receiving messages containing electronic links. As a protection measure, it is recommended that the public avoid following such electronic links and that they never report or register their personal and bank details on unknown websites.
Finally, in order to verify any messages they receive, citizens are urged to contact the mentioned Organizations, through notified communication channels.
* * * * * *
A 40-year-old man was arrested for flagrant offenses, who was spotted by members of the Police, illegally inside a jewellery store in Limassol, following information about a burglary of the premises.
The information about a possible burglary of the premises was received shortly before 11.30 last night, with the information stating that the perpetrator was inside the premises. Members of the Limassol OPE who went to the scene located the 40-year-old suspect inside the building.
In a subsequent investigation, the members of the Police found in a bag in the possession of the 40-year-old, burglary tools, as well as jewellery, for the possession of which he did not give satisfactory explanations.
The members of the Police proceeded to arrest the 40-year-old for spontaneous offenses. During his arrest, the 40-year-old resisted, however he was arrested and taken into custody.
From the examinations that were carried out afterwards, testimony emerged that part of the property found in the possession of the 40-year-old had been stolen from the jewellery store, after a burglary committed in the previous days, specifically between the dates of September 17 and 18. The burglary was reported to the Police on September 18.
* * * * * *
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, eleven persons were arrested for various offenses, such as possession, burglary of a building and illegal possession of property, assault, illegal stay on the territory of the Republic, as well as for traffic violations.
As part of these operations, during the night, 504 vehicles were stopped for inspection and 641 persons on board were checked. At the same time, 37 inspections of premises were carried out, with the aim of dealing with phenomena of delinquency, from which a complaint emerged.
During traffic checks carried out, 337 complaints were made, concerning various traffic violations, while three investigated cases of traffic violations also emerged. As part of the police examinations, two vehicles were detained.
Of the complaints made about traffic violations, 120 complaints concerned exceeding the speed limit. Four complaints were made about driving under the influence of alcohol, while two cases of driving under the influence of drugs emerged. For driving under the influence of alcohol, 124 vehicle driver checks were carried out, while for driving under the influence of drugs, four driver checks were carried out.
Policing operations, for the prevention and suppression of crime, continue every day, with an enhanced police presence, targeted controls and immediate operational action, in order to protect citizens and ensure public order.
* * * * * *
Filenews
The Court of Appeal increased the prison sentence of a man who was convicted of a series of offenses against his partner, including threatening, assault causing actual bodily harm, restriction of liberty, common assault and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision dated 24 September 2026, upheld the appeal of the Attorney General of the Republic, holding that the sentence of two years of immediate imprisonment imposed by the Nicosia Criminal Court was manifestly insufficient in relation to the seriousness of the offences and the circumstances of the case.
The respondent, a Somali national, had admitted five charges before the Criminal Court, with the remaining charges of the original indictment being suspended after his admission. The Criminal Court had imposed a two-year sentence on the charge of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, without imposing additional penalties on the other charges, as their facts were included in this charge.
According to the facts recorded in the first-instance decision, the incident took place on March 10, 2025 in the apartment where the couple lived. The accused allegedly asked his partner to take him in her vehicle to buy drugs. After her refusal, a fight lasted about an hour.
When the woman moved to the sofa in the living room to sleep, the accused allegedly overturned the sofa, causing her to fall to the ground and then started hitting her in the face with his hands and kicking her in the body. At the same time, according to the facts of the case, he was pulling her by the arms, trying to lead her to the bedroom.
When she refused, he grabbed her by the neck and squeezed her, causing her to lose consciousness for about five minutes. When she came to her senses, the accused allegedly continued to beat her, and then put a knife-type knife to her throat for a few seconds. Then, according to the recorded events, he used the charger cable of his mobile phone to hit her on the body and face.
The woman managed to escape hours later and report the case to the Police. He was then examined at the Nicosia Hospital, where bruises and abrasions were found on various parts of the face, neck, upper and lower limbs and body, as well as multiple abrasions on the left arm.
The Attorney General challenged the first-instance sentence as manifestly inadequate, arguing that it did not reflect the seriousness and extent of the offences, nor the weight that should be attached to the need for dissuasive penalties in cases of domestic violence.
The Court of Appeal noted that the Criminal Court had correctly approached the issues of the seriousness of the offences and the need to impose severe and dissuasive penalties. It had also taken into account aggravating factors, such as the intensity, duration and repetitiveness of the violence, as well as the fact that the behavior occurred at more than one time on the same day.
At the same time, the Court of First Instance had taken into account in favor of the defendant his admission, the fact that there was no need to provide testimony from the complainant, the clean criminal record, his young age and his personal, family and financial circumstances.
The Court of Appeal held, however, that despite a proper analysis of the relevant factors, the final sentence of two years was not proportionate to the seriousness of the offences, the extent and duration of the violence and the need for dissuasive punishment. It considered that there was a mismatch between the seriousness of the case and the sentence imposed, which made it necessary for the Court of Appeal to intervene.
As a result, the Court of Appeal replaced the two-year sentence with a three-year prison sentence. As to the remainder, the first-instance decision remains in force.
He fell from the stairs of an airplane during his disembarkation at Larnaca airport, was injured and claimed compensation, but the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no proven negligence on the part of Swissport Cyprus Ltd and rejected his appeal, upholding the first-instance decision. In particular, the Court held that no reliable testimony had been provided linking the fall to any omission or act of the company that had undertaken the servicing of the aircraft and the installation of the disembarkation ladder.
The decision was issued on September 14, 2026 by Judges D. Kitsios, M.G. Piki and M. Drousiotis.
The appellant had appealed to the Court, claiming that he was injured while disembarking from the aircraft, when he fell from the ladder installed by Swissport Cyprus. In his lawsuit, he claimed, among other things, that the necessary protection and safety measures had not been taken, that the staircase was slippery, that bad weather conditions prevailed and that there was insufficient lighting. He also invoked the doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur', according to which, under certain conditions, the very facts of an accident may lead to a conclusion of prima facie negligence.
In relation to the bodily injuries he suffered, the parties had agreed at first instance, on full liability, in the amount of €40,000, including interest. However, the question of whether Swissport was responsible for the crash remained to be determined.
The Court of First Instance had dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the appellant had not proved that the company had violated its duty of care towards him. This judgment was challenged on appeal, with the appellant arguing, among other things, that his testimony essentially remained unchallenged and that the Court of First Instance did not take into account the company's special responsibility for the safe disembarkation of passengers.
The Court of Appeal, however, underlined that the appellant had not been found credible by the Court of First Instance, while Swissport's witness, a Health and Safety officer, had been deemed credible. As the Court of Appeal notes, the judgment on reliability had not been challenged by a specific ground of appeal and, therefore, was a prerequisite for the examination of the case.
According to the findings of the Court of First Instance, it was not proven what exactly caused the passenger to fall. It was also not proven that the ladder was wet or that water had accumulated on it, nor that it did not have anti-slip material. Instead, it was accepted that the staircase had built-in lighting, handles along its entire length, a non-slip surface on each step, and a non-slip tape on the edges of the stairs.
The Court of First Instance had also found that, in accordance with normal practice, the operator of the ladder checks the condition of the lights and the presence of any foreign objects before placing it on the aircraft. No damage to this staircase had been reported, while the testimony that was accepted was that it was in good condition.
The Court of Appeal held that no admissible testimony was presented about the existence of a danger on the ladder associated with the fall. At the same time, it rejected the position that there had been a breach of the duty of care, holding that the Court of First Instance correctly applied the relevant case-law.
In relation to the second ground of appeal, the Court of Appeal also rejected the claim that Swissport had the status of owner or occupier of the aircraft. The findings of the case showed that the company had undertaken the servicing of the aircraft and had installed the ladder, which created a duty of care towards the passengers who would use it. The crucial issue, however, was the extent of the duty and whether it was violated.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the first-instance judgment that, under these circumstances, there was no admissible testimony that the company failed to take reasonable measures or ignored a risk that it knew or should have known.
The Court also considered the invocation of the doctrine "res ipsa loquitur", but held that it could not be applied. As stated in the decision, the appellant had attempted to prove specific circumstances of negligence, while no negligence on the part of the company had been prima facie proven. Therefore, the conditions for shifting the burden of proof to the respondents were not met.
The Court of Appeal also referred to an English case involving a fall from an airplane ladder, but ruled that the facts were different, as there was the presence of frozen snow on the stairs.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal ruled that both grounds of appeal were unfounded, rejected the appeal and upheld the first instance decision. At the same time, it awarded costs of €2,400 plus VAT, if any, in favour of Swissport Cyprus Ltd and against the appellant.
* * * * * *
Yesterday, Thursday (24/9), the Limassol Permanent Criminal Court sentenced a 29-year-old man to a 21-month prison sentence, who was found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm. The 29-year-old injured the complainant during a fight, when he chased him and managed to immobilize him, after robbing a sum of €100.000. The case concerns a premeditated robbery, which was committed on Christmas Eve 2024 in Limassol. The complainant had gone to the place where it had been agreed to carry out the purchase and sale of cryptocurrencies, having the money in his possession in a suitcase.
For this case, the Criminal Court on 10/6, had imposed prison sentences of 5 and 2,5 years on the first defendant, after admitting to the charges of robbery and money laundering. At the same time, the Court issued an order confiscating his property.
As for the second defendant, for whom the case was pending, according to the facts, he entered, together with the 1st defendant, the complainant's car. The latter extorted the sum of €100,000 from the complainant and then the two fled. The complainant followed the two persons with his car, without managing to immobilize them. He then got out of his vehicle and chased the 29-year-old accused, whom he managed to immobilize.
After they started fighting, the accused hit the complainant with his head, causing him various injuries, including a fracture without displacement at the end of the nasal bone and facial injuries. The Police then arrived at the scene while the complainant was taken to a private hospital, where he was treated for 24 hours. Subsequently, he received medication to treat the pain.
When determining the sentence of the 29-year-old defendant, the Court took into account the seriousness of the offense he committed and the need to impose a deterrent penalty, in view of the increase observed in the commission of such offenses. He also took into account that the act of the accused, which caused the injury of the complainant, was an isolated incident, while what was put before the Court did not show any element of pre-planning or premeditation, nor any involvement of the accused in the robbery. The nature and extent of the injury caused, without the use of any instrument, were also taken into account, while it was considered that the severe punishment of the accused became imperative.
It was pointed out that from the facts brought before the Court there was no evidence to demonstrate the existence of a provocation, while it was emphasized that there was no evidence of compensation, which could be counted in favour of the accused. Furthermore, the 29-year-old's admission, his cooperation with the Police, his clean criminal record and his personal circumstances were taken into account.
