The Nicosia Criminal Court has ruled that documents from the Central Prisons that were not previously handed to defence lawyers must be submitted to the court, which will determine whether they should be disclosed to the defence.
At the same time, the court rejected a request to terminate the proceedings submitted by the lawyer representing the second accused.
During Thursday’s hearing, defence lawyers, with the exception of the fifth defendant’s counsel, addressed the court requesting an order compelling the prosecution to disclose all documents discovered at the home of a chief prison officer during a search conducted on April 10, 2025 in relation to another case.
Chris Triantafyllides, defence lawyer for the first accused, former Central Prisons director Anna Aristotelous, argued that the court must have direct knowledge of the content and classification of the documents.
“The issue that has arisen can be resolved through a court decision and the issuance of an order for the disclosure of all documents,” he said.
Triantafyllides further argued that none of the exceptions under Article 7.4 of the Criminal Procedure Law apply in this case and that the prosecution bears the burden of convincing the court regarding the evidence that was not disclosed.
He also questioned how, in a television programme last June, a former police official referred to a document included in the exhibits, while the defence received the same document with sections redacted.
Sotiris Argyrou, defence lawyer for the second accused, Athina Demetriou, adopted the arguments presented by Triantafyllides and additionally requested that the trial be halted on the grounds of abuse of process.
The defence lawyers representing the remaining accused also adopted the position presented by Triantafyllides.
Prosecution position
Representing the prosecution, Anna Matthaiou reiterated that the prosecution does not refuse disclosure of evidential material.
She agreed with Triantafyllides that all documents should be submitted to the court so that it can decide on the matter.
“In this case, the defence has been granted access to the entirety of the evidential material,” she said.
She added that arrangements had been made allowing defence lawyers to inspect documents that were either not disclosed to them or were provided with redactions, but noted that none of the defence lawyers had done so to date.
Matthaiou said that 2,900 classified documents had been disclosed with redactions. She clarified that these documents had been provided to defence lawyers and included the subject of each document, its classification and its date.
She also said that communications between lawyer and client, as well as maps of the Central Prisons facilities, had not been disclosed.
“The non-disclosure of these documents is justified, in our view. It is absolutely necessary for reasons of public interest, the protection of personal data of third parties and because their disclosure could seriously harm the national security of the Republic of Cyprus,” she said.
The court’s decision
After hearing the positions of all parties, the Criminal Court briefly adjourned before issuing a unanimous ruling that the contested documents should be submitted to the court.
The ruling notes that “the burden of proof for the application of the exceptions under Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Law lies with the prosecution”.
The court instructed that the documents be filed before the court so that defence lawyers may inspect them, although they will not be handed over to them.
Regarding the request submitted by the lawyer of the second accused to terminate the proceedings due to alleged abuse of process, the court stated in its decision that “no evidence has been presented before us demonstrating abuse of process or exceptional circumstances that would justify such a measure”.
The ruling also states that suspension of criminal proceedings is permitted only in cases where oppression or complete injustice against the accused arises, something that was not found in the present case.