rape child — rape child — The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals in two separate criminal cases involving serious charges, including rape and child abduction, maintaining that the defendants will remain in custody pending trial.
- As a result, both appeals were dismissed entirely, and the detention orders issued by the respective criminal courts will remain in effect until the cases are adjudicated.
Rape child: First Case Involves Serious Allegations Against MH
In the first case, referred to in court documents as MH, the defendant faces eight charges, including the alleged rape of his wife, common assault, malicious damage, unlawful deprivation of liberty, psychological violence, and threats to distribute intimate photographs and videos. Additionally, he is accused of unlawfully removing the couple’s two children to Jordan without their mother’s consent.
During the appeal, the defendant argued that the prosecution’s evidence did not establish a sufficient likelihood of conviction and claimed there was no genuine risk of absconding. He proposed release under strict bail conditions.
Appeal Court’s Rationale for Denying Release
However, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Nicosia criminal court had correctly determined that there was a prima facie case against MH and a real risk of flight. The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the potential for significant prison sentences upon conviction, and the fact that the couple’s children are currently outside Cyprus.
Second Case: NP Challenges Detention Order
The second case involves NP, who is on trial before the Famagusta criminal court on charges of rape, sexual harassment, and child abduction. He sought to overturn a detention order, asserting that new evidence had significantly weakened the prosecution’s case.
The defence highlighted the absence of the defendant’s sperm cells in forensic examinations, findings from medical examinations, and material obtained from closed-circuit television footage as potential evidence in his favour.
Court’s Decision on Evidence and Detention
The Court of Appeal maintained that such evidence could not be evaluated in isolation at the detention stage, nor could it be considered to determine the credibility of the complainant prior to trial. The court emphasised that these matters would be addressed during the evidentiary phase of the proceedings, leaving it to the trial court to make determinations.
Principles of Pre-Trial Detention
Throughout both judgements, the court reiterated that detention hearings are not designed to ascertain the ultimate guilt or innocence of an accused individual. Instead, the focus is on whether the available evidence indicates a prima facie likelihood of conviction and whether substantial grounds exist to justify the deprivation of liberty before trial.
The court acknowledged the exceptional nature of pre-trial detention but concluded that the circumstances in both cases warranted its continuation. Arguments suggesting that strict bail conditions could mitigate the identified risks were also rejected.
As a result, both appeals were dismissed entirely, and the detention orders issued by the respective criminal courts will remain in effect until the cases are adjudicated.
