Man jailed for killing neighbour’s cat

The Court of Appeal on Friday unanimously ordered a man who killed his neighbour’s cat by repeatedly striking it on the head with a broomstick to serve a two-month prison sentence. The court overturned an earlier decision by the Nicosia district court to suspend the sentence for three years, ruling that there had been insufficient justification for doing so. However, it rejected the attorney-general’s argument that the two-month sentence was excessively lenient and should be increased. In its decision, the Court of Appeal stressed the need for strict punishment of animal cruelty offences, both to deter potential offenders and to protect animals from abuse. The man had been convicted by the Nicosia district court following his admission that he killed his neighbour’s cat in August 2021. He repeatedly struck the animal on the head with a broomstick before placing it in a basket, where it briefly writhed before dying. The appeal court noted that it was unclear whether the trial court had adequately considered the brutality of the repeated blows, which caused a fatal head injury, or the fact that the injured animal had subsequently been placed in a basket. In determining the original sentence, the district court had taken into account the defendant’s admission, clean criminal record and personal circumstances as mitigating factors. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the two-month prison sentence could be considered lenient but found that it was not so inadequate as to warrant intervention. However, it ruled that the mitigating factors considered when determining the length of a sentence did not automatically justify suspending it. The appeal court found that the district court had failed to provide sufficient reasons for suspending the sentence. It also rejected the defence’s argument that the time elapsed since the offence should be treated as a mitigating factor. The court noted that delays in the original proceedings had resulted from difficulties serving the indictment, postponements involving the defence and the welfare office’s failure to prepare a report on time because the defendant had not responded. The Court of Appeal therefore rejected the attorney-general’s challenge to the length of the sentence but upheld the appeal against its suspension, ordering the man to begin serving his two-month prison term immediately.