Central prisons case: charges amended to include 551 digital items

The Nicosia criminal court on Thursday approved amendments to charges against eight defendants in the central prisons documents case, increasing the number of digital items allegedly stolen from 421 to 551, while the defence challenged the prosecution’s request to add a police officer to its witness list. The court is expected to announce its decision on the additional witness on November 3. The amendments concern the sixth and ninth charges, under which the defendants, while serving as public officials, allegedly stole state property from the Prisons Department between October 2022 and April 2025. According to the revised indictment, the alleged theft involved 551 items, including optical discs, floppy disks and USB storage devices, which were reportedly removed from the central prisons and taken to the home of the third defendant. All eight defendants were formally charged again following the amendments and pleaded not guilty. Senior State Counsel Vasilis Bissas said the changes were intended to bring the details of the indictment into line with the prosecution’s evidence. He clarified that they did not involve additional evidence being disclosed to the defence, but concerned items containing digital material. He argued that, as proceedings were still at an early stage, the amendments would not prejudice the defendants’ rights. Lawyer Christos Triantafyllides, representing the first defendant, former central prisons director Anna Aristotelous, did not object to the amendments but described the prosecution’s approach as an abuse of process. The second defendant, former deputy director Athena Demetriou, objected, arguing that her rights were being violated and pointing to repeated changes in the number of documents involved in the case. The remaining defence lawyers raised no objections. The court approved the amendments, taking into account the early stage of proceedings, the nature of the changes and the fact that the evidence itself remained unchanged and was available for inspection by the defence at any time. Following the ruling, Bissas submitted a notice seeking to add a police officer to the prosecution’s witness list. He said the officer would testify for formal purposes concerning exhibits discovered during a search of the third defendant’s home, which had been collected by police and remained in their custody. According to the prosecution, the relevant evidence had been disclosed to the defence long ago, and adding the witness would neither affect the proceedings nor prejudice the defendants’ rights. However, defence lawyers representing seven of the eight defendants objected, with only the fifth defendant’s lawyer raising no objection. Triantafyllides argued that, under established case law, a witness added to the prosecution’s list must have involvement in substantive matters relating to the case and therefore could not simply be described as a formal witness. He referred to correspondence between the prosecution and defence, including an email dated October 15, 2026, in which prosecutors indicated their intention to call a police officer whose identity had not yet been established. A subsequent email on October 22 identified the officer but stated that his witness statement was not yet available and would be prepared after he received the exhibits, before being disclosed to the defence. According to Triantafyllides, the officer’s statement was taken on Thursday. “So this formal witness has such extensive involvement in substantive matters that he only received the exhibits today,” he said, challenging the prosecution’s description of the testimony as merely procedural. Demetriou adopted Triantafyllides’ arguments, claiming that the addition violated her rights and the principle of equality of arms. She argued that the officer’s testimony could not be considered formal because it concerned the very objects at the centre of the charges. She also questioned the legality of their seizure and the chain of custody. Chloe Constantinou, representing the third defendant, also supported Triantafyllides’ position, pointing out that the police officer had no previous involvement in the investigation. The court adjourned proceedings until November 3 at 9.30am, when it is expected to rule on whether the additional prosecution witness will be permitted.