The Court of Appeals has unanimously turned down the appeal of a stepfather. He was convicted by the Paphos Criminal Court for 18 counts of sexual offenses against his underage stepdaughter. The initial decision stands firm.
In a decision dated February 12, 2026, the charges included acts from 2018 to 2019 when the complainant was just 13 years old. These acts included rape, child sexual abuse through trust abuse, and domestic violence offenses.
The Court of Appeals stated there was “no room for intervention” in assessing testimonies or sentence severity. They dismissed the appeals as unfounded and fully supported the Paphos Criminal Court’s initial decision.
The Court of Appeals stressed that “the trial court is generally better positioned to judge during the live atmosphere of the trial and assess the witnesses.” It pointed out that the defendant’s claims about expert testimony assessment did not warrant intervention. The Court noted that “the judgment on whether the alleged sexual abuse occurred is the work of the adjudicating court and not the experts.” They emphasized that “it is not an expert’s role to comment on a witness’s credibility,” and judges hold the responsibility for the final judgment.
When it came to testimony from relatives of the complainant, the Court found no different evaluation criteria from the Criminal Court. There was also no violation of the right to an impartial trial. The assessment of the complainant’s testimony was justified and detailed. Regarding the defendant, the Court highlighted that the Criminal Court clearly explained why it did not accept his testimony, leaving no reason for intervention.
On sentencing, the Court ruled that the seriousness and number of offenses, along with abuse of trust and victim’s age, are aggravating factors that justify the imposed sentences. They reminded that intervention is only justified if a sentence is “manifestly excessive or inadequate” or if a wrong principle has been applied, which did not happen in this case.
