The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


The CF Judgment for the O’Dwyer case!

Feel free to talk about anything that you want.

Postby Oracle » Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:47 pm

Jack M wrote:Provokation involved taking photos of his own house. Yes, that is a really terrible thing to do.


The judge said: "The plaintiff’s behaviour cannot be isolated from the way things went. He activated four spy cameras; one being a micro- camera hidden well in his jacket"
:shock:


Even now he is still the lawful owner of the house, as confirmed by your own Minister of the Interior.


That must be tough because the impression he gave us was that he didn't want the house and stopped paying towards it being built! :D

He doesn't even read this forum so he's not going to answer you and it's none of your business anyway.


How do you know he doesn't read this forum? Do you report back to him? :lol:

Have you seen how many threads he started here to spread his side of the story?
User avatar
Oracle
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 23507
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:13 am
Location: Anywhere but...

Postby Oracle » Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:51 pm

By: George Psyllides
Published: November 5th, 2010
THE Attorney-general will appeal a court decision and the sentence handed down in the assault of a British national by a developer following a dispute over a property.

On Wednesday, a Paralimni court sentenced property developers, Christoforos Karayiannas, 55 and his son Marios, 35, to a 10-month jail term that was however suspended for two years for assaulting Conor O’Dwyer in 2008.

A third man involved in the incident, 31-year-old Charalambos Ttigis was fined €3,000.

The court found the trio guilty last month of assaulting O’Dwyer and causing actual bodily harm (ABH) – and not the more serious grievous bodily harm (GBH) count, the state had charged them with

State prosecutor Thanasis Papanicolaou told the Cyprus Mail yesterday that the state will appeal. “I have been authorised by the Attorney-general to file an appeal for both the decision and the sentence,” Papanicolaou said. He added that this would be done in the next few days.

Papanicolaou stressed, that the fact that the plaintiff was British did not make any difference to the state.

“Every person has rights in the Republic of Cyprus, whether they are Cypriots, foreigners, EU nationals or third country nationals,” he said. “The Attorney- general’s position is that nothing changes because he is British or any other nationality. Justice is for all.”

The GBH charge carries a maximum of seven years in jail while ABH goes up to three years.

In her decision on October 27, Judge Evi Antoniou said O’Dwyer – when he testified during the trial – was “excessive in most points.”

“He was stressed, lost his temper, and through his testimony it became evident that the only thing he wanted was the punishment of the defendants,” the judge said. “This led him to numerous contradictions in his testimony.”


During sentencing, the judge said she accepted the position that Christoforos and Marios Karayiannas had been repeatedly provoked by the plaintiff. “Recording most of the conversations the plaintiff had with defendant One without him knowing … publishing the conversations on the Internet, the claims of the plaintiff that defendants One and Two are liars and they mislead people, and publishing these claims as well as harassing” the defendants’ clients “cannot be ignored,” the judge said.

“The plaintiff’s behaviour cannot be isolated from the way things went. He activated four spy cameras; one being a micro- camera hidden well in his jacket to peacefully measure, according to his claim, the pavement of the house he bought and to take pictures,” the judge said.

That provocation was taken into consideration when deciding whether to suspend the sentence, the judge said. It is believed that this particular point will be disputed by the prosecution in the appeal.

The legal precedent cited by the judge stated that provocation can be a mitigating factor in passing sentence but nowhere did it explicitly say that it can be used to suspend a sentence.



http://www.news.cyprus-property-buyers. ... /id=006061
User avatar
Oracle
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 23507
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:13 am
Location: Anywhere but...

Postby Schnauzer » Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:44 pm

One can hardly ignore the dedication exhibited by the 'Faithful Followers' of the 'Conman' Conor (and what a brilliant name to have guised himself in, for he must surely have expected comment to such similarity) in the run up to the recent trial.

How joyous they were when the defendants were deemed to be guilty and how short lived their joy when the actual sentence was announced.

Such jaw dropping as has not been witnessed since the Yanks discovered the fact that 'Nelson Mandela' was STILL listed on the C.I.A's. list of terrorists on the eve of his 90th birthday commemorative party, attended by no less a person than the Queen of England herself.

(The above snippet of information MAY come as a surprise to some, I assure you, it is a fact) :lol:

And now, one can almost sense the tension as the aforementioned followers, thirsting for blood and salivating with hopeful expectation that an appeal hearing might produce severe punishment for those who gave Conor what he deserved for his cunning and offensive behaviour.

As Conor was informed initially, "You are not in England now" and, since he was fool enough to ignore the wisdom contained in those few words, he should have drawn in his horns and acted a little less disrespectfully.

Had the Karayiannis duo (plus associate) NOT given Conor a good hiding (which I suggest he thoroughly deserved if only for his ignorant and abusive comments) be sure that someone else would have, in fact, it was better that he received his 'Drubbing' sooner rather than later, since his manner was becoming so 'Vile', he might have ended up much worse off in terms of injury, than he did. (IMHO)

Unfortunately, the 'Salivating Supporters' of the disreputable ruffian, will have to wait a little longer before they have a chance to taste 'Blood' BUT, it is not over till the fat lady sings (as they say) and the 'Law' (like the Almighty) often moves in strange ways. :wink:

We will just have to pitch our tents and wait. :lol: :wink:
User avatar
Schnauzer
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2155
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 10:55 pm
Location: Touring Timbuktu.

Postby Jerry » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:01 pm

I don't suppose anyone has considered the idea that the parties, in different ways, ARE BOTH TO BLAME for this event. A bit like Hitler and Stalin perhaps, both bad blokes but mainly good in the eyes of their own people. (I hate using the Americanised term - "guys")
Jerry
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4730
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: UK

Postby Schnauzer » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:23 pm

Jerry wrote:I don't suppose anyone has considered the idea that the parties, in different ways, ARE BOTH TO BLAME for this event. A bit like Hitler and Stalin perhaps, both bad blokes but mainly good in the eyes of their own people. (I hate using the Americanised term - "guys")


Fair comment Jerry, for as much as it was wrong for the physical attacks on Conor (in the eyes of the law) it was equally wrong of Conor to offer abuse to those who attacked him (also in the eyes of the law).

The behaviour of BOTH parties may be questionable BUT, when the matter of 'Provocation' is considered, I would suggest that Conor's actions both prior and subsequent to his 'Drubbing', were far more provocative than those of the businesspeople he was both dealing with and NOT.

As to his subsequent 'Campaign' he has merely proven himself to be as poor a property negotiator as he is a property speculator. (IMHO). :wink:
User avatar
Schnauzer
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2155
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 10:55 pm
Location: Touring Timbuktu.

Postby Jack M » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:28 pm

Oracle wrote:
Jack M wrote:Provokation involved taking photos of his own house. Yes, that is a really terrible thing to do.


The judge said: "The plaintiff’s behaviour cannot be isolated from the way things went. He activated four spy cameras; one being a micro- camera hidden well in his jacket"
:shock:


I am so glad you bought this up. Such a massive precedent for future cases. I can envisage its use now:

Laywer for a defendant just found guilty of rape: M'lord/lady, my client was provoked into raping this woman. She wore a provocative outfit the night following the rape. For case law I use State v Karayiannas 2010 where the defendants claimed they were provoked by the victim wearing secret cameras they knew nothing about and such defence was accepted as a mitigating factor in reducing sentence.


Even now he is still the lawful owner of the house, as confirmed by your own Minister of the Interior.

That must be tough because the impression he gave us was that he didn't want the house and stopped paying towards it being built! :D
The defendants refused to accept his stage payment which had already been transferred to the lawyer's account.

He doesn't even read this forum so he's not going to answer you and it's none of your business anyway.


How do you know he doesn't read this forum? Do you report back to him? :lol:

Report no. Chat yes.
Have you seen how many threads he started here to spread his side of the story?

And your point is?
Jack M
Member
Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:55 am

Postby Jerry » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:33 pm

Schnauzer wrote:
Jerry wrote:I don't suppose anyone has considered the idea that the parties, in different ways, ARE BOTH TO BLAME for this event. A bit like Hitler and Stalin perhaps, both bad blokes but mainly good in the eyes of their own people. (I hate using the Americanised term - "guys")


Fair comment Jerry, for as much as it was wrong for the physical attacks on Conor (in the eyes of the law) it was equally wrong of Conor to offer abuse to those who attacked him (also in the eyes of the law).

The behaviour of BOTH parties may be questionable BUT, when the matter of 'Provocation' is considered, I would suggest that Conor's actions both prior and subsequent to his 'Drubbing', were far more provocative than those of the businesspeople he was both dealing with and NOT.

As to his subsequent 'Campaign' he has merely proven himself to be as poor a property negotiator as he is a property speculator. (IMHO). :wink:


Maybe, I'm not sure what kicked off the saga in the first place. My guess is it just escalated from nothing to what we we see today because both parties were used to solving their disputes by applying the law of the jungle. Personally, I would not like to do business with either party, a couple of rough buggers by the sound of it.
Jerry
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4730
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: UK

Postby Jack M » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:34 pm

Oracle wrote:By: George Psyllides
Published: November 5th, 2010

“He was stressed, lost his temper, and through his testimony it became evident that the only thing he wanted was the punishment of the defendants,” the judge said. “This led him to numerous contradictions in his testimony.”[/b]



Pity when considering contradiction that the Judge couldn't even get the number of days Conor spent in hospital correct amongst other things.

Pity also that she failed to mention the phone call made to the police saying they were going to beat him up. Clearly proving premeditation which entirely negates provocation.

Anyway, they remain convicted criminals and the case is going to appeal so it remains to be seen what happens.
Jack M
Member
Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:55 am

Postby Schnauzer » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:34 pm

Jack M wrote:
Oracle wrote:
Jack M wrote:Provokation involved taking photos of his own house. Yes, that is a really terrible thing to do.


The judge said: "The plaintiff’s behaviour cannot be isolated from the way things went. He activated four spy cameras; one being a micro- camera hidden well in his jacket"
:shock:


I am so glad you bought this up. Such a massive precedent for future cases. I can envisage its use now:

Laywer for a defendant just found guilty of rape: M'lord/lady, my client was provoked into raping this woman. She wore a provocative outfit the night following the rape. For case law I use State v Karayiannas 2010 where the defendants claimed they were provoked by the victim wearing secret cameras they knew nothing about and such defence was accepted as a mitigating factor in reducing sentence.


Even now he is still the lawful owner of the house, as confirmed by your own Minister of the Interior.

That must be tough because the impression he gave us was that he didn't want the house and stopped paying towards it being built! :D
The defendants refused to accept his stage payment which had already been transferred to the lawyer's account.

He doesn't even read this forum so he's not going to answer you and it's none of your business anyway.


How do you know he doesn't read this forum? Do you report back to him? :lol:

Report no. Chat yes.
Have you seen how many threads he started here to spread his side of the story?

And your point is?


YOUR cover was blown ages ago mate, get back in your tent, rain is forecast. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:
User avatar
Schnauzer
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2155
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 10:55 pm
Location: Touring Timbuktu.

Postby Jack M » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:36 pm

Jerry wrote:
Schnauzer wrote:
Jerry wrote:I don't suppose anyone has considered the idea that the parties, in different ways, ARE BOTH TO BLAME for this event. A bit like Hitler and Stalin perhaps, both bad blokes but mainly good in the eyes of their own people. (I hate using the Americanised term - "guys")


Fair comment Jerry, for as much as it was wrong for the physical attacks on Conor (in the eyes of the law) it was equally wrong of Conor to offer abuse to those who attacked him (also in the eyes of the law).

The behaviour of BOTH parties may be questionable BUT, when the matter of 'Provocation' is considered, I would suggest that Conor's actions both prior and subsequent to his 'Drubbing', were far more provocative than those of the businesspeople he was both dealing with and NOT.

As to his subsequent 'Campaign' he has merely proven himself to be as poor a property negotiator as he is a property speculator. (IMHO). :wink:


Maybe, I'm not sure what kicked off the saga in the first place. My guess is it just escalated from nothing to what we we see today because both parties were used to solving their disputes by applying the law of the jungle. Personally, I would not like to do business with either party, a couple of rough buggers by the sound of it.


Yes because we would all cheerfully give away £100,000 so if that is nothing, as you guess, then what follows doesn't matter.
Jack M
Member
Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:55 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests