The Cyprus Court of Appeal rejected the appeal of a man convicted in a case of child sexual abuse in the Paphos District by a unanimous decision issued on August 1.
According to the text of the decision, Efesion was found guilty, following a hearing by the Paphos Permanent Criminal Court, of a total of fourteen charges, namely twelve charges of sexual abuse of a child and two charges of domestic violence.
As reported, the charges related to offenses committed between 2017 and 9.5.2019, against a minor, born around the end of 2009, while Efesion was cohabiting with her mother, with the Criminal Court imposing concurrent prison sentences on Efesion of 11 years (charges 54, 55), 9 years (charges 52, 53), 7 years (charges 42, 43), 6 years (charges 31, 32), 3 years (charges 21, 22) and 8 years (charges 1, 2, 11, 12).
Subsequently, it is stated that the conviction is challenged on fourteen grounds of appeal.
Specifically, it is claimed that there was a violation of the right to equality of arms and a fair trial because the Assize Court did not allow the examination of the minor by the Defense expert, in rebuttal to the testimony of the clinical psychologist who examined the minor and prepared a psychological evaluation report, that there was a violation of the right to a fair trial due to the failure of the investigating authorities to investigate essential aspects of the case, which should have led to a suspension of the criminal prosecution due to abuse of process, that there was a violation of the presumption of innocence due to the reversal of the burden of proof on various aspects of the testimony, as well as a violation of the right to a fair trial due to the Assize Court's erroneous and arbitrary conclusions and assumptions in relation to the testimony before it.
Furthermore, it is claimed that there was an incorrect assessment of the testimony of the minor's mother, which was wrongly partially accepted, that part of the testimony of the Defense expert was wrongly rejected, that there was an incorrect and biased assessment of the Appellant's testimony, that there was an omission to deal with essential aspects of the testimony and a misinterpretation of testimony exculpatory for the Appellant, as well as that there was an incorrect assessment of the complainant's testimony, which was wrongly deemed reliable in the absence of corroborating testimony.
Additionally, it is argued that there was an incorrect acceptance of the testimony of the prosecution's expert in violation of the jurisprudentially recognized method of evaluating expert testimony, that there was an incorrect evaluation of the testimony of the Appellant's stepfather, that there was an incorrect and biased evaluation of the testimony, that there were contradictory verdicts as the findings in the conviction contradict the findings recorded in the sentencing decision, as well as that there was a violation of the right to a fair trial, procedural equality and adversarial procedure due to the many responses with the phrase "I don't remember" by the mother and the minor in their testimony.
It is added that with the 15th ground of appeal, the sentence is challenged as a result of an error of principle to the extent and extent that mitigating factors were not taken into account while aggravating factors were taken into account that did not exist, while with a separate appeal, the sentences are challenged as manifestly insufficient by the Attorney General.
Subsequently, it is noted that the Court of Appeal examined, based on the multi-page text of the decision, all the grounds of appeal, judging them in their entirety as unfounded.
The Court of Appeal also notes the "large age difference" between the first-instance perpetrator and the victim, as well as the "exploitation of a relationship of trust under conditions of intense violence."
It is also added that "there was no admission as an indication of practical remorse and avoidance of exposing the victim and his relatives to the mental ordeal of the trial and reliving the traumatic events, which is rewarded with a corresponding reduction in the sentence."
"We do not find any evidence of manifest exaggeration or manifest insufficiency in the sentence imposed. The Criminal Court determined the sentence after considering all relevant factors, taking into account the measure delimited by the case law for offenses of this nature, giving due emphasis to the element of deterrence. Based on all of the above, both the appeal against the conviction and the appeals against the sentence are dismissed," the Court of Appeal concludes.
Source: KYPE
