The Court of Appeal has upheld a nine-month immediate prison sentence imposed on a woman for sharing sexually explicit photographs and videos of another woman without her consent.
In a judgment dated 9 July 2026, the court dismissed the appeal in its entirety, finding that the sentence imposed by Nicosia District Court was neither manifestly excessive nor suitable for suspension.
Form of violence
The court emphasised the seriousness of the offence, describing it as a form of violence against women that undermines human dignity and the constitutional right to privacy.
The appellant had pleaded guilty to distributing sexually explicit photographs and videos depicting the complainant to both a third party and the complainant herself, in breach of the Prevention and Combating of Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence Law.
On appeal, she argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and should have been suspended. She cited delays in the criminal proceedings, the fact that she had not created the material but had received it from a co-defendant, and claimed that she had acted following provocation arising from a personal rivalry.
No justification
The Court of Appeal rejected all of those arguments, ruling that none justified a reduction in sentence.
The judgment placed particular emphasis on the gravity of the offence, endorsing the reasoning of the trial court.
"The seriousness of the present offence has a direct impact on the victim's dignity, mental wellbeing and psychological integrity, since personal moments, which the victim expects to remain private, are not respected and are disclosed to third parties," the court said.
Growing trend
The court also noted what it described as an increasing prevalence of such offences, stating that the non-consensual distribution of sexually explicit material is "on the rise to a worrying extent", as reflected in the growing number of cases coming before the courts, and that this trend justifies the imposition of increasingly deterrent sentences.
It also rejected the appellant's claim that she had been provoked by the complainant's conduct, including allegations that the complainant had previously shared her personal photographs or that both women had been involved with the same man.
According to the judgment, personal rivalry could not be regarded as a mitigating factor in offences of this nature. The court said such circumstances "do not support the suspension of the sentence. Quite the opposite."
No justification
The Court of Appeal further dismissed the argument that the complainant's character should have been taken into account.
"Whatever the appellant intended by that expression, the complainant's character could not, as a matter of principle, be taken into consideration," the court said, referring to the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law.
The judgment also found that the complainant's constitutionally protected right to privacy had been violated, adding that breaches of fundamental human rights require a robust judicial response.
Addressing the request to suspend the sentence, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court had properly exercised its discretion, finding that suspension "would not serve the multiple purposes of sentencing" and "would send the wrong message both to the appellant and to other potential offenders regarding the consequences of committing such offences."
The appeal was dismissed, leaving the original sentence of nine months' immediate imprisonment in place.
Source: CNA
