The appeals court has upheld a nine-month prison sentence imposed on a woman convicted of distributing intimate photographs and videos of another woman without her consent, rejecting arguments that the punishment was excessive.

The judgment, made public on Tuesday, upheld the Nicosia district court’s decision to impose an immediate custodial sentence after finding no grounds to reduce or suspend the penalty.

The woman had admitted distributing sexually explicit photographs and videos of the complainant to both a third party and the victim herself.

According to the case, the complainant had been involved in a relationship with the appellant’s husband, who claimed she acted out of revenge after receiving the material from a co-defendant rather than creating it herself.

In her appeal, the woman argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and should have been suspended, citing delays in the criminal proceedings, the circumstances in which she obtained the material and what she described as provocation arising from the personal dispute.

The court rejected those arguments, ruling that none justified reducing the sentence.

“The seriousness of the present offence has a direct impact on the dignity, psyche and psychological integrity of the victim,” the court said, adding that intimate moments “are shared with third parties” despite the victim’s expectation that they remain private.

The court also warned that offences involving the distribution of intimate sexual material are increasing.

“The offence of sending sexual material is on an alarming rise,” it said, adding that the trend “justifies the imposition of even more deterrent penalties.”

Judges also rejected the argument that the complainant’s conduct or the appellant’s motive of revenge should be treated as mitigating factors.

“These are not circumstances that argue in favour of suspension. Quite the opposite,” the judgment said.

The court further ruled that suspending the sentence “would not serve the multiple purposes of the sentence” and “would send the wrong messages” to both the appellant and other potential offenders, dismissing the appeal in its entirety.