The former teacher of Stylianos Constantinou, the 14-year-old boy who died by suicide in 2019, told Nicosia district court on Friday that she had reported everything the child told her about alleged violence at home.

“I reported everything that Stylianos told me about violence. I did not hide anything,” she told the court.

During cross-examination, lawyer for the boy’s father Konstantinos Kazantzis suggested that the teacher’s reports about Stylianos’ aggression and behaviour at school were based on her own conclusions and that she could not have known what was happening at his home.

The teacher said that, based on her observations as an educator, the child had displayed changes in his behaviour and had trouble concentrating, adding that the family situation “did not allow him to function smoothly in school”.

Reference was also made to abrasions, a head injury and a burn mark on the child’s body, which the witness had mentioned during earlier proceedings.

According to the teacher, Stylianos had told her that the burn was caused by his father extinguishing a cigarette on his body.

Asked whether she knew that the child’s parents had never smoked, she said she could not have known.

Kazantzis also questioned the teacher about incidents she had mentioned during earlier proceedings but which, he said, were not included in her investigative statement given in 2020.

The teacher said she had mentioned many things at the time but that they had been recorded “in a laconic manner”, adding that she had not been asked specific questions.

“Seeing that the trial will take place and thinking back, some incidents came to mind. I want, while I am now being given a second chance to speak on behalf of my student, to speak and do everything right,” she said.

Asked whether the child’s accounts could have been fantasies, the witness said teachers did not interrogate children but encouraged them to express themselves before informing the relevant services.

“In my 13 years of service as a first-grade teacher, a child confusing reality with fantasy means that he has a psychiatric condition and needs to be investigated,” she said.

She added that Stylianos had been evaluated and there had been no finding that he confused reality with fantasy.

The teacher acknowledged, however, that she had not witnessed what happened inside the family home and stressed that her evidence concerned what Stylianos had told her and what she had personally observed.

During cross-examination by the mother’s lawyer, Jonathan Betito, the witness was questioned about the child’s head injury.

Betito suggested that she [the witness] could not have known the extent of the injury or whether it had already been treated by the parents before Stylianos arrived at school and subsequently reopened.

“In my 26 years of service, I have never before seen children arrive with injuries that had not been treated,” she said, adding that the wound did not appear to have received treatment.

Asked how she could know whether allegations of violence made by the child’s mother were true, the witness said the mother herself had told her that she had gone to the police and filed a complaint.

The witness was then cross-examined by lawyer Viktoras Akamas, representing the senior social services officer who had been responsible for Stylianos’ case.

Akamas questioned her about details given during her earlier examination which, he said, had not appeared in her initial statements.

The teacher said that while reviewing her statement ahead of the trial, she had recalled additional details.

Asked when she had reviewed the statement, she said that before appearing in court she had visited the office of a prosecution representative, who informed her that she would be called as a witness and explained the procedure.

She said she had been asked to provide further information about an incident referred to in her statement and to explain what she knew about reports of violence and neglect concerning Stylianos.

Akamas suggested that points not contained in the original statement had been discussed and clarified during the meeting before subsequently being raised in court. He suggested this could amount to impermissible “coaching” of the witness, which the teacher denied.

“No, I mentioned certain things that she herself asked me about in order to understand what had happened. She wasn’t preparing me for anything, if that’s what you mean,” she said.

Akamas also questioned her about procedures for dealing with cases of domestic violence.

The teacher said she had followed the chain of command by reporting incidents to the headteacher, who then liaised with child protection services.

Regarding a letter sent by the headteacher to child protection services in March 2011, the witness said it documented an escalation in Stylianos’ behaviour and an incident in which he had left the school.

Akamas pointed out that the letter did not specifically mention incidents of violence or injuries.

The teacher replied that this “does not mean that they did not happen”, maintaining that she had reported the incidents to the headteacher, who in turn contacted child protection services.

“I didn’t make up everything I told you. I was in contact with the headteacher about all the incidents and she gave me feedback,” she said.

“I reported the serious incidents immediately to my headteacher and she herself phoned the child protection services straight away.”

Regarding the alleged cigarette burn, Akamas said the teacher had not personally seen the injury and suggested that, had she done so, she would have reported it to police.

The witness replied that the incident had been reported to the criminal investigation department.

She said reporting the matter directly to police would have subjected Stylianos to a “very difficult process”, as he was a minor and would have had to be taken to police by his parents to testify against his father, whom she initially described as the perpetrator.

“We did what was best for the child,” she said.

When Akamas suggested that her references to a “perpetrator” and “victim” demonstrated bias against Stylianos’ family, the teacher corrected herself, referring instead to the “alleged perpetrator” and “alleged victim”.

Asked about her statement that she was speaking “on behalf of her pupil”, the teacher said that, with hindsight, “as a state, we did not act as we should have done to protect Stylianos”.

“The experts were there, but we didn’t manage it. Today I am being given a second chance to restore the memory of my pupil as I know him,” she said.

The witness’s cross-examination is scheduled to continue on September 15 at 8.30am.