Filenews 17/10
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 police operations, eleven persons were arrested for various offenses such as illegal stay on the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, illegal possession of drugs and traffic offences.
As part of these operations, during the night, 667 vehicles were stopped for inspection and 925 persons on board were checked. At the same time, inspections were carried out in 57 premises with the aim of dealing with delinquency phenomena, during which 8 complaints emerged.
During traffic checks carried out, 353 complaints were made, concerning various traffic violations, while 26 investigated cases of traffic violations also emerged.
Of the complaints made, 84 concerned exceeding the speed limit, while as part of the police examinations, 18 vehicles were detained.
388 alcohol tests were carried out, from which 28 complaints emerged, as well as 6 preliminary drug tests with one positive result.
Policing operations, for the prevention and suppression of crime, continue daily, with an increased/enhanced police presence, targeted controls and immediate operational action, with the aim of increasing the sense of security of citizens/protecting citizens and ensuring public order.
* * * * * *
The Police proceeded yesterday to arrest another person, aged 16, in connection with the investigated case of assault, committed against a 16-year-old, on 09/10/2026, in the province of Nicosia.
The 16-year-old is expected to be brought before the Nicosia District Court today for the procedure for issuing a detention order.
For the same case, seven persons were arrested on October 14, 2026, to facilitate investigations. One person was released after nothing came to light against him, while the other six persons were placed in five-day detention following a relevant detention order by the Nicosia District Court.
The TAE of Nicosia continues the examinations.
* * * * * *
Before the National Guard's "IRIS 2026" exercise ended, yesterday at the Kalo Chorio firing range in Larnaca, the metal collectors got to work.
According to information from filenews, the Police proceeded to arrest two Greek Cypriots, aged 56 and 40, who entered the area of the firing range by truck, around 16:30, in order to collect metals, shells and other ammunition residues used during the major military exercise "IRIS 2026".
According to the same information, after police investigations, in their possession, in addition to metals and iron, property of the National Guard was found.
The two arrested were interrogated and released at midnight, while they are expected to be called to account before Justice at a later stage.
* * * * * *
A case of assault and robbery with a food delivery man as a victim, is being investigated by the Police, in Limassol, following a relevant complaint by a 31-year-old.
According to the complainant, around 10.15 p.m. yesterday, while he was riding his motorcycle, on Paphos Avenue, he was approached by two people, who were riding a motorcycle, and stole his mobile phone, which he had attached to the handlebars of his motorcycle.
The 31-year-old followed the perpetrators and in his attempt to approach them, the passenger of the motorcycle allegedly kicked him, as a result of which he fell to the ground without being injured.
While the complainant was on the ground, a third person who was riding another motorcycle and seems to have been with the other two perpetrators, allegedly approached him and stole a sum of money in his possession. The perpetrators then left the scene.
After the complaint, members of the Police went to the area where they carried out examinations.
The Limassol Police Department is investigating the case.
* * * * * *
The Police arrested seven people aged between 16 and 19 last night, to facilitate investigations into an investigated case of causing malicious damage, possession of an offensive instrument and traffic offenses.
Specifically, after relevant information about a group of young people who were on Aniokoikodosis Street in Agios Athanasios and were causing a nuisance while allegedly harassing food distributors passing through the area, members of the Police went to the scene for examinations.
The members of the Police stopped two cars in which a total of seven people were riding.
The first car was driven by a 16-year-old, who had two other people of his age as passengers, while the second car was driven by a 19-year-old who had three other 17-year-old persons as passengers.
The above had previously been noticed by the members of the Police, writing slogans with spray paint on advertising signs.
During the investigation that followed, 12 paint sprays and a wooden bat were found in their possession.
All of the above were arrested for spontaneous offenses and taken to the Germasogeia Police Station where they were charged in writing with the offenses of causing malicious damage.
For the 16-year-old, the offenses of driving without a license, without a safety certificate, without the consent of the owner, also arose, while the specific car was declared immobilized, while the 19-year-old driver of the second car was also accused of possession of an offensive instrument, after a wooden bat was found inside his car.
All of the above were charged in writing and released to be summoned before a Court.
The Germasogeia Police Station in collaboration with the Limassol Traffic Police continue the examinations.
* * * * * *
The Directorate for Combating Organized Crime – D.A.O.E. / Drug Enforcement Service – YKAN (Larnaca Unit), proceeded with the seizure of a quantity of cannabis, with a gross weight of 6 kilograms and 110 grams, as well as the arrest of two persons, aged 39 and 67, for the purpose of investigating a case of importation and trafficking of drugs, in cooperation with the Customs Department.
The quantity of cannabis was found yesterday morning 16/10/2026, in a postal parcel, which arrived at Larnaca airport, after an inspection carried out by the Customs Department and then handed over to D.A.O.E / YKAN, as part of their coordinated actions to deal with the import and trafficking of drugs.
In the postal package, which contained a painting, eleven packages containing the amount of dry cannabis plant matter were found, with a total gross weight of 6 kilograms and 110 grams.
Members of the D.A.O.E., around 3.30 pm yesterday, after an operation, proceeded to arrest a 39-year-old man, who presented himself and received the postal package. He was accompanied by a second man, aged 67, who was also checked by members of the Police.
The 67-year-old was arrested for a flagrante delicto, after a brown solid substance weighing about 2 grams was found in his possession. From the tests that followed, evidence emerged that connects the 67-year-old with the amount of cannabis found in the postal package that the 39-year-old had received.
The 39-year-old and 67-year-old were taken into custody for the purpose of investigating a case of supply, import, and possession of drugs for the purpose of supplying to other persons.
The case is being investigated by the D.A.O.E. (YKAN Larnaca Unit).
* * * * * *
The Police in Nicosia arrested a 38-year-old man this morning, to facilitate investigations into causing a road collision, obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duty, resisting arrest and causing malicious damage to an official vehicle.
Specifically, around 2 in the morning today, information was received about a driver who caused a road collision in a parking lot in Nicosia.
Members of the Police went to the scene where they located the 38-year-old, who was previously alleged, while moving in reverse, dragged and injured two 24-year-old women who were moving on foot in the parking lot.
The two girls were transported by ambulance to Nicosia General Hospital where they were given first aid and discharged.
In the presence of the police at the scene, the 38-year-old allegedly shouted and caused concern, while he is also alleged to have repeatedly pushed a member of the Police in his attempt to escape from the scene, as a result of which he was arrested for flagrant offenses.
During his transfer to the Nicosia Central Police Station, the 38-year-old allegedly knocked with his hands and feet on the door of the patrol vehicle, resulting in his self-injury.
He was taken to Nicosia General Hospital where he was given first aid and discharged, while he was then taken into custody for offenses investigated by the Nicosia Central Police Officer.
It is noted that, in a breathalyzer test submitted by the 38-year-old, the final reading was 53μg instead of 22μg which is the maximum limit by the Law.
The Nicosia Central Police Station in collaboration with the Nicosia Traffic Police continue the examinations.
* * * * * *
The Court of Appeal unanimously suspended the three-year prison sentence imposed on a defendant in cases of burglary of houses, ruling that, despite the correctness of the first-instance decision regarding the determination of the sentence, there was an error in the assessment of the issue of its suspension.
The Court of Appeal, composed of Judges M. Abizas, St. Christodoulidou-Messiou and I. Stylianidou, held that the successful completion of the treatment program for the rehabilitation of the convict, as well as the relevant report of the competent Advisory Committee, were essential elements that had to be evaluated in the light of the purpose of its reform. In its decision, the Court of Appeal suspended the remainder of the prison sentences for a period of three years from the date of the first instance decision.
The appellant had been sentenced to three years in prison after admitting six of the ten charges he faced. The charges concerned, among other things, burglary of a residence during the night, possession of burglary instruments and other related offenses.
An appeal was filed against the conviction and the sentence imposed on him, with the appellant's lawyer, Marinos Armeftis, arguing that the Court of First Instance made an error of principle in determining the sentence and did not properly evaluate his efforts to rehabilitate from drugs.
In addition to the report of facts, a letter from the Advisory Committee provided for by the relevant legislation for the treatment of addicted persons, as well as a letter from the therapeutic community of Agia Skepi, were placed before the Limassol Court of First Instance. According to the evidence presented, the appellant successfully completed the treatment program, complying with his obligations and completing all his phases. The therapeutic community reported that he showed consistency and that, after completing the program, he exhibited a healthy and functional behavior, making efforts to take care of himself and the rest of the community members.
During the first instance proceedings, the defense had attributed its client's delinquent behavior to his addiction to hard drugs and his attempt to secure the means to satisfy his addiction. Particular emphasis was placed on his integration into the closed therapeutic community and the successful completion of the program, which required discipline and significant effort.
The defence also argued that the convicted person had been released from prison and that, in the event of a prison sentence, the case was appropriate for the exercise of the court's discretion to suspend the sentence.
The reasoning of the Court of First Instance
The Limassol Court of First Instance took into account the seriousness of the offenses, the increase in burglaries and the need to impose severe and dissuasive penalties. He also took into account the immediate admission of the accused, his cooperation with the Police, his personal circumstances and the completion of the rehabilitation program. The court also took into account the criminal record of the convicted person, who had two previous convictions. Despite the mitigating factors, the Court of First Instance held that the suspension of the prison sentence was not justified and decided that the sentences should be immediately enforceable.
In his appeal, the convicted person argued that the Court of First Instance disregarded the jurisprudential principles relating to drug rehabilitation and the spirit of the relevant legislation. In particular, he complained that no substantial reference was made to the treatment decree that had been issued, to the fulfillment of the terms of the treatment program and to the progress report of the Advisory Committee.
He also argued that the consequences that his re-incarceration in the Central Prison would have for the course of his rehabilitation were not properly assessed. At the same time, he claimed that the time he had remained in the closed therapeutic community, for treatment purposes, was not sufficiently taken into account, as opposed to the time he was on trial.
For her part, the representative of the Attorney General acknowledged that the appellant had proven in practice his intention to change his lifestyle, consenting to the treatment and successfully completing the relevant program, despite the difficulties he faced. He argued that this effort and the change in his life were not adequately reflected in the determination of the sentence, taking into account the therapeutic purpose of the relevant legislation.
Where did the Court of Appeal find the error
In its decision, the Court of Appeal notes that the Court of First Instance correctly took into account the seriousness of the offenses and the factual factors of the case, as well as the mitigating factors in favor of the convicted, including his immediate admission and cooperation with the Police.
However, the Court of Appeal found an error in the way the issue of the appellant's dependence on hard drugs and, in particular, his efforts to rehabilitate himself was approached. As pointed out in the decision, the reference of the Court of First Instance to the successful completion of the Agia Skepi program was limited and did not reflect the weight of the evidence that had been put before it. The fact that the convicted person had completed a demanding treatment program, in conjunction with the report of the competent Advisory Committee, should have been evaluated more effectively when considering the possibility of suspending the sentence.
The Court of Appeal clarified, at the same time, that the seriousness of the offences, the appellant's criminal record and the amount of the sentence imposed on him did not justify interference in the selection and determination of the prison sentence. His intervention specifically concerned the decision of the Court of First Instance not to suspend its execution.
"Second chance" for the convicted
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal ruled that the suspension of the sentence could contribute more effectively to the reform of the convicted person and as a result it would be considered a more beneficial solution both for society as a whole and for the appellant himself, who would be given a second chance
Taking into account the provisions of the legislation, the successful completion of the treatment program and the report of the competent Advisory Committee, the Court of Appeal considered that this case justified the provision of a second chance to the appellant. The appeal was therefore upheld in that regard and the remainder of the prison sentences were suspended for a period of three years from the date of the judgment at first instance.
* * * * * *
The Supreme Court rejected the application of an Iranian national for a privileged Habeas Corpus warrant, requesting that his continued detention be declared illegal and that his immediate release be ordered, ruling that the detention for deportation purposes has not exceeded a reasonable period of time.
In his decision, dated October 13, 2026, Judge Alexandros A. Panagiotou ruled that the competent authorities reviewed the applicant's detention in accordance with the law, while the deportation procedure cannot proceed at this time due to the appeal he registered against the detention and deportation orders, under which the deportation has been suspended.
The applicant was arrested in March 2026 for illegally staying in the Republic of Cyprus and on 23 March detention and deportation orders were issued against him. On 31 August 2026, he registered an application before the Supreme Court, arguing that his detention continued without the prescribed two-month review, without being notified of a reasoned decision to continue it and without the competent authorities taking substantive measures to remove him from Cyprus.
He also argued that the conditions prevailing in Iran make it practically impossible for him to be deported, so he risks remaining in detention for an indefinite period of time with no real prospect of removal.
The Republic objected to the application, initially arguing that it was premature, as the initial six-month detention period provided for by law had not been completed. At the same time, he argued that the detention was lawful and necessary due to the risk of absconding, and that the delay in deportation was linked to the applicant's conduct and the judicial proceedings initiated by him.
According to the evidence presented to the Court, the applicant had submitted an application for asylum in 2006, which was rejected at both first and second instance. In 2013 he was arrested for a case concerning, among other things, forgery, circulation of a forged document, impersonation and illegal stay. In September of the same year, detention and deportation orders were issued, and in January 2014 he was deported to Iran.
As stated in the decision, the applicant returned to the Republic of Cyprus at the end of 2014 through the areas not controlled by the Republic. She then married a Cypriot citizen and secured a residence permit, which was renewed until January 2024. After his divorce, in 2022, he submitted a new application to settle his stay, which was rejected in April 2024. In March 2026, he was arrested again for illegal stay.
Examining the application, the Supreme Court rejected the claim that it was premature due to the non-completion of six months of detention, clarifying that the legality of the detention can be examined even before the completion of the specific time limit. However, it considered that, in the present case, the detention had been reviewed on 8 April, 11 June and 15 July 2026, on the basis of the applicant's immigration history, his previous deportation, his re-entry into Cyprus and the steps taken to obtain travel documents.
Nor did the Court accept the claim that deportation was impossible because of the situation in Iran. As he noted, sufficient material had not been put before him to prove that war conditions or an unstable situation still prevailed in the country or that there was a ban on flights to it.
At the same time, he reminded that the detention of a foreigner for deportation purposes cannot be unlimited, but must last as long as necessary to carry out his removal, with the competent authorities having to act with due diligence. In the present case, however, it considered that no reasonable period of time had elapsed nor had any illegality been demonstrated to justify the release.
"His detention for deportation purposes has not exceeded the reasonable period of time and therefore does not become illegal," concludes the decision, by which the application was rejected without an order for costs.
* * * * * *
A Somali man, whose application was initially rejected by the Asylum Service for international protection, was recognized the day before yesterday as a refugee by the Court, because he needs protection due to the conditions in his country.
The fact that he was imprisoned and tortured by an armed organization in Somalia, as well as the American airstrike in 2018 for which he was arrested, contributed to the reversal of the initial rejection decision. The 25-year-old applicant left his country in 2020 and entered the Republic irregularly in 2021. Subsequently, he applied for international protection and in an interview with a competent officer of the European Asylum Support Office (EUAA), his allegations of arrest and torture were not believed, which is why he was rejected.
The Somali appealed to the Administrative Court of International Protection without a lawyer and in a written speech he expressed fear of persecution, which he will face in his country on charges of membership of the Somali government. In addition, he recorded that he was tortured in the prison of the city of Haradhere, his hometown and also referred to the existence of the extremist group Al Shabab, which maintains control in his city. Finally, he asked the Court for protection in view of the danger he faces in his country.
As he mentioned, on October 12, 2018, an airstrike by US forces took place in his area of residence. The applicant, his brother and four other people were accused of collaborating with government forces and assisting US forces. They arrested them and took them to the Police Station where they abused them. He stated that he remained for a year and ten months in Abu Cubeyd prison where he was subjected to torture. His brother was a prisoner in the same prison and after torture, as he was forced to put his head in a plastic bag, he died. When his uncle was informed of his brother's death, he decided to help him be released on bail on August 3, 2020. He then fled his country via Kenya.
The Court held that the evidence submitted to it did not show that a relevant specialized assessment had been carried out. On the contrary, Judge Eleni Riga notes, during the interview the applicant, referring to the injuries he attributed to the burning of plastic, offered to show them and the EUAA officer replied that this was not necessary. "This offer does not prove the existence or origin of the wounds. However, it shows a willingness to support the claim with evidence that has not been investigated.
Under the specific circumstances, the absence of medical documentation cannot be used as an independent reason for rejection," it states. It was the Court's conclusion that the applicant's acceptable status as a victim of torture was taken into account as an essential personal circumstance. His recognition as a refugee is based, however, on the cumulative fulfilment of the substantive conditions of the refugee status and not on his vulnerability.
