A legal dispute over the admissibility of statements attributed to 14-year-old Stylianos Konstantinou emerged before Nicosia District Court on Tuesday during criminal proceedings relating to his death, with the court now tasked with deciding whether the references can be accepted as evidence.
The issue arose following the completion of the cross-examination of criminal investigator Andreas Andreou and at the start of testimony from Konstantina Papachristodoulou, who had been Stylianos' kindergarten teacher during the 2008–2009 academic years.
After answering preliminary questions, the witness was asked by prosecutor Eleni Constantinou to submit her written statement as an exhibit.
'Hearsay evidence'
While the defence did not object to the statement as a whole, it challenged the admissibility of specific passages containing references allegedly made by Stylianos himself.
Defence lawyers argued that the disputed passages constituted hearsay evidence because they originated from a person who is now deceased and therefore cannot appear before the court for cross-examination.
The defence maintained that, even if the remainder of the statement is admitted, the contested references should be removed.
Following the completion of defence submissions, the court granted the prosecution time to present its position. The prosecution is expected to rely on both Cypriot case law and jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights.
The prosecution's submissions have been scheduled for Friday at 11am, while Wednesday's previously scheduled hearing has been cancelled.
Cross-examination focuses on investigation
Earlier in the proceedings, the cross-examination of criminal investigator Andreas Andreou was completed by lawyer Marios Spyrou, who represents the 11th defendant, a Social Welfare Services officer.
The questioning focused on aspects of the investigative process, particularly how evidence and information contained in a report by the Commissioner for Administration were assessed.
The defence highlighted that the statement of an official linked to the receipt of Exhibit ME15 had been taken before statements were obtained from the 10th and 11th defendants. It argued that, despite indications of possible interference with an official memorandum, the official had not initially been recalled for clarification.
Mr Andreou responded that the official had in fact been recalled, adding that at the relevant time "there was no investigation under way that would have raised an issue of interference".
Transcribed in summary
Mr Spyrou also raised questions regarding proper investigative practice, arguing that witness statements should be recorded in writing and signed by those providing them in order to ensure accuracy. The investigator agreed with that position.
The defence further examined statements given by officials during the Commissioner for Administration's inquiry. Mr Andreou said the material available to investigators indicated that the information provided to the Commissioner had been delivered orally and later summarised by those conducting the inquiry.
According to the investigator, the statements appeared to have been transcribed in summary form based on the understanding of the Commissioner or those assisting with the investigation, with what was considered to be the substance of each official's comments subsequently recorded.
He also agreed that the investigative team did not have written and signed statements from the officials who had provided information to the Commissioner for Administration.
Different incident?
Mr Spyrou further argued that the only references linking the 11th defendant to the suicide attempt of the minor and the failure to take additional action originated from statements made by the 9th and 10th defendants.
"I agree with that," the witness replied, while adding that investigators had taken the view that officials should have been aware of critical information relating to the case.
At another point during the cross-examination, the defence submitted that a person who had never been informed of a specific incident could not reasonably be expected to know about it. The witness agreed.
The defence also questioned whether a particular reference, if read in isolation from other documents and information contained in Social Welfare Services files, could be interpreted as an allegation of a suicide attempt or as a reference to an entirely different incident.
Mr Andreou responded that, if examined separately from the wider documentary record, the reference could potentially be interpreted in the manner suggested by the defence.
The case concerns the death of 14-year-old Stylianos Konstantinou in September 2019. The court is examining whether responsibility may lie both within the family environment and with state services.
Proceedings are focusing on whether there were instances of abuse or neglect within the family, whether the boy's mother was aware of incidents that were not reported, and whether Social Welfare Services officials adequately assessed and acted upon the information available to them.
Source: CNA
