Pafos Live 14/11
The Paphos District Court yesterday imposed a two-year prison sentence on a 38-year-old man, after finding him guilty after a trial of a case of illegal importation of opiate drugs.
The case concerned the import of a quantity of dried poppy bulbs of the species Long or Sleepy, with a total gross weight of 500 grams, found in a postal package, which arrived at Larnaca Airport, last June, 2026.
From the examinations carried out by the Anti-Drug Service - YKAN, testimony emerged against the 38-year-old. He was located and arrested by the members of YKAN, on June 25, in Paphos.
Upon completion of the police examinations, the Police proceeded to register the case for trial by the Paphos District Court. This morning, the District Court sentenced the 38-year-old to two years in prison for the crime of importing drugs.
The case had been investigated by YKAN (Paphos District Echelon).
* * * * * *
A quantity of cocaine, about 19 kilograms, was detected yesterday by DAOE - YKAN in cooperation with the Customs Department, at Larnaca airport. To facilitate the investigations, a 20-year-old man was arrested, who was taken into custody.
Around 6.20 p.m. yesterday, in the context of the cooperation of DAOE - YKAN with the Customs Department, to identify persons who import drugs into Cyprus, a 20-year-old man, who had arrived in Cyprus from a foreign country, was stopped for control.
During the check carried out in his luggage, 16 nylon packages were found, which contained cocaine, with a total gross weight of 18 kilograms and 924 grams. As a result, the 20-year-old was taken into custody for self-inflicted offenses.
DAOE – YKAN (Larnaca District Unit) is investigating the case.
* * * * * *
The Police made 12 arrests during night operations in urban areas throughout Cyprus. In the traffic controls, 236 complaints were recorded, while another eight cases of traffic violations are under investigation.
According to the Police, the arrests concerned, among other things, illegal possession of drugs, illegal stay in the Republic of Cyprus, causing grievous bodily harm, theft of property and driving under the influence of alcohol.
During the night, 575 vehicles were stopped for inspection and 741 occupants were checked. 52 inspections were also carried out on premises, from which 17 complaints emerged.
Of the traffic complaints, 45 concerned exceeding the speed limit. Of the 192 alcohol tests, 23 complaints emerged, while one of the six preliminary drug tests was positive. As part of the examinations, seven vehicles were detained.
Police said patrols and targeted checks continue daily to prevent crime and ensure public order.
* * * * * *
A 33-year-old man, who was injured during a fight that took place in the early hours of Saturday at a nightclub in the Saripolou area, in Limassol, is in serious condition at Nicosia General Hospital. Four persons were arrested in connection with the case, who are expected to be brought before the Limassol District Court today.
According to the data under investigation, the incident took place around 00:20, under circumstances that are being investigated by the Police.
The 33-year-old was initially taken to the Limassol hospital, where he was found to have suffered a skull fracture and has facial injuries and bleeding in his left eye.
Due to the severity of his injuries, he was taken to Nicosia Hospital, where he is being treated and is expected to undergo surgery.
As part of the investigation of the case, the Police arrested two men aged 23, a 22-year-old and a 22-year-old woman, who are expected to be brought before the Court for the issuance of detention orders.
All four arrested have injuries, while the 22-year-old suffered a fractured nasal bone.
The investigations of the TAE Limassol continue to determine the exact circumstances and causes of the fight.
Update - Those involved in the bloody attack that took place on Friday night in the area of Saripolou, in Limassol, were allegedly under the influence of alcohol. As a possible reason for what unfolded, according to information, a reference allegedly made by the 33-year-old Russian to the 22-year-old girlfriend of one of the people involved, who was also arrested, is being considered.
The 33-year-old was seriously injured and was initially taken to Limassol General Hospital, and then taken to Nicosia General Hospital for further treatment.
Four people were arrested in connection with the case, two men aged 22 and 23, another 23-year-old and a 22-year-old woman, all from Ukraine. The four were brought before the Limassol District Court, which ordered their detention for a period of six days.
According to information put before the investigators of the Limassol Police Department, the attack seems to be connected to what the victim allegedly reported to the 22-year-old girlfriend of one of the suspects. Investigators are investigating the cause of the fight, while they are expected to take statements from the four arrested with the help of an interpreter.
It is recalled that Police received information about an injured person around 12.20 after midnight. Its members who rushed to the area of Saripolou found the 33-year-old lying on the ground and injured. He was then transported by ambulance to the Limassol General Hospital.
The examinations revealed that he suffered a fractured personal skull, bruises to the face and bleeding in the eye, as a result of which it was deemed necessary to transfer him to Nicosia.
In the meantime, the four arrested underwent medical examinations. The 22-year-old had a fractured nasal bone, while the others had abrasions and bruises in various parts of their bodies. After receiving the necessary treatment, they were discharged.
* * * * * *
A lawyer failed to appear in a case of a foreign client who was assigned to the Court with a request for international protection, as a result of which it was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay costs of €500.
The lawyer was before the Disciplinary Council of Lawyers following a complaint by the complaining client, which considered the omission to be serious and imposed a fine of €2,500 and a reprimand at the same time. Initially, the lawyer faced nine charges, however, eight were withdrawn and one remained, which he admitted. He was accused that while he is a lawyer registered in the Register of Lawyers practicing the profession, he "showed shameful, negligent and incompatible conduct and behavior towards the profession of lawyer", since on 30/10/2024, the date on which the complainant's case was set before the Administrative Court of International Protection, he failed to appear before the said Court but also failed to inform the complainant to appear in person, As a result, the case was dismissed and costs of €500 were awarded against him, thus violating his obligation to be accurate in his appearances before the Court.
According to his lawyer, the defendant has been practicing law since 2002. It is the first time he has come before the Disciplinary Court. "This is an act that was not his intention to take place. The envelope fell and there was no correct date in his diary so that he could attend. He did not do it on purpose. It should be noted that his client is also the complainant's brother, who was served in a similar procedure and whose procedure ended successfully. And there was no complaint. Furthermore, it should be noted that the defendant received only the amount of €200 as the stamps of the appeal and no other remuneration received from the complainant. Furthermore, it should be noted that the interests of the complainant have not been affected by the defendant's oversight, as we have been informed by another colleague that his case has been brought back before the Administrative Court of International Protection and is pending."
The Disciplinary Board considered the misconduct on the part of the defendant lawyer to be serious, "the seriousness of which is aggravated by the fact that, as it appears from the facts, the defendant lawyer did not take any action to correct and/or mitigate the negative consequences for his client-complainant, while he failed to inform the complainant of this development in order to take corrective measures himself". The Council rejected in its decision d. 9/11/2026, the position of the lawyer of the accused lawyer, that the complainant had the right and knew or could receive legal advice from his lawyer to make a reinstatement, since it does not appear from the facts that the accused lawyer advised the complainant on any corrective measures he could take, such as the registration of a reinstatement application. The assumption that the applicant knew or could have received advice from his lawyer is arbitrary and has no basis in the facts, the three members of the Disciplinary Board ruled. Finally, the Disciplinary Committee pointed out that the responsibility of the lawyer to be accurate in his appearances in the Courts acquires increased importance in cases, such as the present one, where the failure to appear results in the rejection of a case and especially in such a case, such as the case of the complainant, which concerns the protection of the fundamental rights of their clients.
In view of these findings, he sentenced the lawyer to a fine of €2,500 and the payment of €250 in the costs of the proceedings.
* * * * * *
The Mayor of Dromolaxia-Meneou, Kypros Andronikou, appeared before the Larnaca District Court yesterday morning, in the context of the case pending against him, following a complaint by the Deputy Mayor of the Municipal District of Dromolaxia-Meneou, Giannos Ioannou.
The lawyer of the Mayor of Dromolaxia Meneou, Giannis Polychronis, stated that "today we put before the Court in general the position of the Mayor that the details of the indictment do not reveal an offense and that with this private criminal case an attempt is made to criminalize the freedom of political expression, which is contrary to the Constitution and outside the scope of the specific criminal provision stated in the indictment".
Mr. Polychronis stated that "in this regard, we made a relevant request dated October 21, 2026 to the Attorney General to intervene and suspend the criminal prosecution and we are waiting for his decision".
He added that "if a suspension is not granted, then all legal issues will be raised before the Court to decide them."
On the part of the Deputy Mayor, his lawyer, Alexandros Clerides, refuted this position, acknowledging that freedom of expression is a fundamental democratic right. However, he argued that in this particular case the official page of the Municipality was used, in his opinion, fraudulently and in order to damage the image and credibility of the Deputy Mayor in front of the local community.
In relation to the request for the suspension of the criminal prosecution and the possible termination of the criminal proceedings against the Mayor of Dromolaxia Meneou, the Deputy Mayor's lawyer stated that "he intends to send a letter of reply to the Attorney General, in which he will set out in detail the facts and evidence that, according to his side's position, are necessary for the full information and evaluation of the case".
The next hearing has been set by the Court for Friday, December 11.
* * * * * *
A Greek Cypriot man will follow the path of detention until the trial of his case, who faces five charges of allegedly demanding money with threats from his mother and grandmother, as well as threats and psychological violence against them. The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected his appeal and upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance, ruling that there is a real risk of committing new offenses if he is released.
According to the decision, the incidents for which he is accused allegedly took place on September 23 and 24, 2026. In particular, he is accused of demanding money on two different occasions with threats, one from his grandmother and one from his mother, while he is also accused of threatening his mother and exercising psychological violence on the two persons.
During the initial proceedings before the Nicosia District Court, the accused had admitted the charges and was ordered to be detained until the next hearing for sentencing purposes. Subsequently, however, he changed his answer to a non-admission, resulting in the case being set for a hearing on November 12, 2026.
The Prosecution then reinstated the request for his detention, citing both the risk of evading justice and the risk of committing new offenses. The Court of First Instance did not accept the suggestion of a risk of evasion of justice, but considered that there was sufficient evidence to indicate the possibility of committing new offenses and ordered his detention.
The defense challenged the decision with five grounds of appeal, arguing, among other things, that the Court of First Instance gave undue weight to other pending criminal cases faced by the accused, without adequately weighing all of his personal and family circumstances. He also cited his clean criminal record, psychiatric report, therapeutic data and his ties to Cyprus, arguing that restrictive conditions could be imposed instead of detention.
The Court of Appeal, examining the case, paid particular attention to the fact that the accused faces two other pending criminal cases for the same or similar offenses. In one of them, his mother is complaining again, while in the other, his mother and brother are complaining.
As can be seen from the decision, the alleged incidents in the three cases extend over a period of about one year and seven months and concern, according to the allegations of the Prosecuting Authority, several criminal offenses against three different persons.
Particular importance was also attached to the fact that the accused allegedly committed the offenses of the case under consideration while he was already at liberty in the context of the other pending cases. In fact, one of them includes an accusation of alleged violation of an exclusion decree, which was issued in the context of the other case.
The defence had argued that the removal order from the complainant was being complied with and that restrictive conditions could be reimposed as an alternative to detention. The Court of Appeal, however, held that the reference to the possible violation of this decree was an additional element that reinforced the need for detention.
The judges underlined that in order to establish a risk of committing new offenses, accurate testimony is not required, but it is sufficient to create, through all the data, a strong impression of a real possibility of future delinquent behavior. They also noted that pending criminal cases can be taken into account for the assessment of this risk, when they concern offences of the same or similar nature.
The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance had adequately examined all the relevant data and correctly reasoned its decision. In his judgment, the possibility of committing new offences prevailed, under the circumstances, over the need to safeguard the individual freedom of the accused, with a view to protecting society as a whole.
In the end, all five grounds of appeal were rejected as unfounded and the first-instance decision to detain him was unanimously upheld.
It is noted that the charges he faces have not yet been tried and what is attributed to him are allegations of the Prosecuting Authority.
