A police officer who groped a female colleague at the Cyprus Police Academy, then attacked her twice more when she tried to avoid him, will serve three months in prison after the Appeals Court rejected his appeal on 2 February.
The court upheld the officer’s conviction for indecent assault and two counts of common assault, dismissing his claims that the trial was unfair and the sentence excessive.
The incidents began in March 2018 when both officers were trainees at the police academy. The defendant had been sending messages to the victim via mobile phone, Facebook and Viber. When he told her he had fallen in love with her, she told him to stop contacting her.
He kept messaging. Days later, during a lesson break, the victim entered a classroom to collect personal items. Two other officers sat reading. As she headed for the door, the defendant—who was standing near the exit—grabbed her waist with one hand and her buttocks with the other.
The victim froze in shock and didn’t react. She went straight to the academy canteen and told two friends what had happened. But she didn’t report it—she was a new recruit worried about the consequences for her career and for him.
After both finished training in December 2018, they were assigned to security duties at MMAD on opposite shifts. In late March 2019, they came face to face. The defendant walked up and struck her with his elbow. She shouted at him to stop bothering and hitting her. He ignored her.
Three weeks later, on 19 April 2019, during a training break at EKEM shortly after 13:00, she saw him approaching in the classroom corridor. She moved aside to give him space. He changed direction, came at her again, and elbowed her in the right side before walking on.
She reported all three incidents that day. She’d realised he wouldn’t stop.
The District Court of Nicosia convicted the officer after trial on four charges: indecent assault in March 2018, sexual harassment relating to the same incident, and two counts of common assault. He was sentenced to three months’ immediate imprisonment for the indecent assault and one month for each assault charge, to run concurrently.
Both the officer and the Attorney General appealed. The officer argued the trial court wrongly assessed witness credibility, that contradictions in testimony were significant, and that the three-month sentence was excessive and should have been suspended given the time that had passed since the offences. The Attorney General argued the sentence was too lenient.
The Appeals Court found the trial judge had meticulously analysed every witness and piece of evidence, explaining each credibility assessment in detail. The judge had examined the precise words witnesses used to describe the groping incident, concluding that what mattered was the interpretation of their descriptions, not exact wording.
The defendant’s appeal challenged alleged coaching of the victim, but the court noted the witness had mentioned speaking with the prosecution representative without accepting any guidance about her testimony. Nothing in the evidence suggested improper preparation, the court said.
On claims of deficient police investigation, the court said the trial judge had addressed the point and found no bad faith. The Appeals Court found nothing to justify a finding of deficient investigation.
The Appeals Court emphasised that crimes of this nature violate personal dignity and require deterrent sentences. The trial court was right to stress that the offences were committed by a police officer—someone tasked with maintaining law and order—against a female colleague during working hours, it said. These were three separate incidents despite the victim’s protests, the court noted.
The trial court had recognised all mitigating factors, including the significant time elapsed since the offences, the Appeals Court said. It found no error in how sentencing was approached, balancing the seriousness of the crimes against individual circumstances.
Objectively assessed, the sentence was neither manifestly inadequate nor manifestly excessive, the court said. The necessity of imprisonment had been properly determined, and the time factor had been seriously considered. The court found no error of principle and dismissed all grounds of appeal.
Read more: