A man sentenced to 11 years jail after being found guilty of sexually abusing a child in Paphos has lost his appeal, after the Court of Appeal upheld the original verdict and sentence in a unanimous ruling made public on Thursday.

The defendant had been convicted by the Paphos criminal court on 14 charges in total. These included 12 counts of child sexual abuse and two counts of domestic violence. The offences took place between 2017 and May 9, 2019. The victim, a girl born around late 2009, was the daughter of the man’s partner at the time.

The criminal court sentenced him to multiple concurrent prison terms. These included 11 years, nine years, eight years, seven years, six years, and three years, depending on the charges. The maximum overall sentence remained 11 years, as the penalties were concurrent. The convicted man challenged the ruling on 14 grounds of appeal. These focused mostly on claims that his right to a fair trial had been breached.

He argued that the court had refused a request for his defence expert to examine the minor, to counter the findings of a prosecution clinical psychologist. He also claimed that the police had failed to investigate key elements of the case, which he said should have led to a suspension of proceedings.

Further arguments included claims that the court had wrongly reversed the burden of proof and that it had drawn incorrect conclusions from the evidence. He also said the court had unfairly dismissed parts of the defence witness testimony, including his own and that of his stepfather.

The appeal also claimed that the testimony of the child and her mother was inconsistent and weak, and that the child had been wrongly found credible despite a lack of supporting evidence.

The man further argued that the psychologist for the prosecution was given undue weight, in breach of standard legal practice. Another ground of appeal challenged the length of the sentence.

The defence said the criminal court had not taken into account any mitigating factors and had instead considered aggravating ones that were not present. A separate appeal by the attorney-general argued the sentence was too low.

However, the Court of Appeal rejected all arguments in a ruling on August 1. The judges examined the lengthy appeal decision and found each point raised to be baseless. The court highlighted the significant age gap between the accused and the victim and referred to the abuse of trust under conditions of violence. The judges also noted that the man had shown no remorse, nor had he admitted guilt to spare the victim from the trauma of a trial.

“We find no evidence of excessive or inadequate sentencing,” the judgement said.

“The criminal court assessed all relevant factors, followed established case law on offences of this nature, and placed appropriate weight on deterrence.”

The appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed in full.