The court of appeal ruled on Tuesday to acquit a driver convicted over a fatal traffic accident in 2019 after finding that the reasoning of the trial court was flawed, despite the defendant having already served almost his full 2.5-year prison sentence.

The appeal court set aside the conviction without ordering a retrial, concluding that the time already served rendered further proceedings pointless.

The case stemmed from a crash on August 24, 2019 on the main road between Kantou and Souni, where one driver was killed and passengers in other vehicles were seriously injured.

The crash occurred on an unlit stretch of road where visibility was limited to vehicle headlights and further affected by the road’s curve.

The Limassol district court had convicted the driver of causing death by reckless and dangerous conduct and of driving at a speed likely to endanger life, sentencing him to 2.5 years in prison on November 24, 2023.

The conviction was appealed by lawyer Constantina Arcade.

None of the drivers involved testified that they saw the accused overtaking, changing lanes or speeding.

In its judgment, the court of appeal stressed that there was no direct testimony “proving” such conduct.

Two experts had presented conflicting reconstructions of the collision and disagreed on the methodology used to calculate the speed of the appellant’s vehicle.

The judges said the trial court did not properly compare the two expert versions side by side, adding that there was an unexplained preference for one account over the other.

“There was acceptance of one testimony and rejection of the other in a general and vague manner,” the court said, pointing out that both experts reconstructed events retrospectively based on data rather than personal observation.

The court of appeal concluded that the original verdict was insufficient and while such findings would normally raise the question of a retrial, the judges held that, given the passage of time and the fact that the appellant had almost completed his sentence, “there is no question of a retrial”.