Supreme Court rejects appeal to cut sentence of woman jailed over illegal adoption

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an appeal to reduce the sentence of a woman jailed for six years after pleading guilty to child trafficking in connection with the illegal adoption of a child by a same-sex couple in 2018.

The woman was sentenced to six years in prison after pleading guilty to 15 charges relating to perjury, forgery, circulating a forged document, and drafting a document under false pretences.

The appeal called for the sentence to be reduced by at least two years, calling the Criminal Court’s decision “excessive and very strict” and saying it failed to take into account mitigating factors presented before the court.

The woman was arrested in 2019 after suspicion that two men in a same-sex partnership had illegally adopted a baby brought to Cyprus by a woman from the Philippines.

She had given a false statement that she was the mother of an infant born in July 2017 in the Philippines and had presented a fake birth certificate showing she was the mother of the child, and a Cypriot man the father.

During her trial, the woman admitted to buying the baby in the Philippines and bringing it to Cyprus to be illegally adopted and that the documents she had presented to the Cypriot authorities were fake.

The two men who adopted the child, a Greek Cypriot and a Turkish Cypriot, are believed to have fled the country via the north, along with the child. They have not been located since and are thought to be abroad.

The Supreme Court said it would be rejecting the appeal because the woman’s actions were “premeditated and studied,” and while she had many opportunities to reconsider her choices she continued. “Legality has not been restored”, the court said.

The court’s decision said that with her actions, the woman has determined the child’s future as the adoption was never checked or approved by competent departments and the suitability of the persons involved remains unknown, as is the condition of the child at any time.

In addition, the child has been away from its biological parents since birth, in the care of the couple in unknown conditions, and its wellbeing remains a dominant factor and concern in this case.

“It is our conclusion that the sentence imposed can in no way be considered excessive, nor severe. The Criminal Court considered all mitigating factors and showed leniency, imposing a sentence that was in fact less than a third of what is provided by law,” the Supreme Court ruled.

“The appellant’s complaints are completely unfounded,” the court concluded.