A criminal investigator told Nicosia district court on Monday that Stylianos Constantinou, the 14-year-old whose 2019 death by suicide led to criminal proceedings over the handling of his case by state services, should have been placed under Social Welfare care, at least temporarily, to ensure his protection.
Andreas Andreou gave the testimony during his continued cross-examination by Victor Akamas, the lawyer for the third defendant, a Social Welfare Services officer.
The case concerns the death of Stylianos in September 2019 and examines whether there were responsibilities both within the family and on the part of state services. In May 2026, two Social Welfare Services officers were given suspended prison sentences after pleading guilty to offences concerning deliberate neglect of official duty by a public officer in connection with the case.
Asked whether Social Welfare officers, and specifically the third defendant as the responsible “base officer” in Stylianos’s case, should have acted differently based on the information available between 2010 and 2012, Andreou answered yes.
“If Stylianos had been removed from his parents, he would probably be alive today,” Andreou told the court.
He said that, under the circumstances and based on the information available during that period, Stylianos should have been placed under the care of the Social Welfare Services for at least some time, so that his protection could be ensured.
Akamas referred Andreou to a statement taken in August 2020 from a former director of the Social Welfare Services, which said that an officer who became aware of domestic violence in a family had to report it to police and inform their superior.
Asked whether any evidence had been obtained proving that Stylianos had physical injuries caused by violence, Andreou said no medical evidence had been collected during the investigation.
He said, however, there were reports that the boy had gone to school with marks and said he had been hit with a belt. In other cases, Stylianos reportedly said his father “beat him like a dog” and “beat him at the pen”.
The cross-examination also focused on the interdepartmental manual used by the Social Welfare Services at the time for handling domestic violence cases.
Andreou said that, after examining entries made by the third defendant, who was the officer responsible for monitoring Stylianos, he did not find an explicit reference to whether the child was in immediate danger.
“I am not saying that no actions were taken at all,” he said. But he added that “the proper investigation was not carried out” and that some immediate actions that should have been taken were not taken.
According to Andreou, some incidents appeared not to have been forwarded to police for investigation, while efforts by Social Welfare officers to contact the child’s father, who was alleged to have been abusive, did not have the desired results.
He said the situation in the family “remained problematic”, despite actions taken by various bodies.
“What led me and Mr Pogiatzis, as the criminal investigators in the case, to suggest the possible commission of the specific criminal offences is that from kindergarten until the middle of the second year of primary school, whatever was done to protect Stylianos appears not to have been enough. The situation was out of control,” Andreou said.
He added that nothing substantial appeared to have been done by the Social Welfare Services to help Stylianos or his family.
Andreou also referred to information recorded by the third defendant during her first visit to the family home, according to which an assembled hunting shotgun was on a bed. He said there was also a case in which Stylianos’s father went to the child’s school carrying a hunting shotgun.
Those details, together with other information in the file kept by the Social Welfare Services, “should have made the Services act immediately”, he said.
Akamas then referred Andreou to statements by former directors and supervisors of the Social Welfare Services who were serving at the relevant time. According to those statements, removing a minor from their family was considered “a last resort”, with officers primarily seeking to preserve family unity.
Andreou agreed that this was the approach followed by the Social Welfare Services at the time, but said this “does not mean it is the correct approach”.
The court also heard about a multidisciplinary meeting held at Stylianos’s school in October 2011 with the participation of teachers and other specialists, where the possible removal of the child from the family home was discussed.
According to Andreou, the third defendant presented the existing problems and raised issues concerning possible removal, but the move was not ultimately carried out.
The cross-examination will continue on Tuesday at 11am.
The proceedings focus mainly on whether there were cases of abuse or neglect within the family, whether the mother knew of incidents and failed to report them, and whether Social Welfare officers adequately assessed and handled the information before them.
Read more: