The decision of the Paphos police to arrest the inconsolable and grief-stricken father of the three-year-old boy who fell to his death from a fourth-floor window in a Chlorakas hotel on Sunday afternoon must rank as one of the most insensitive and foolish decisions ever taken by the force. The father, who had arrived earlier on the same day for a holiday with his family, was remanded in custody for eight days by the Paphos district court on Monday.

Why did the judge approve the request for an eight-day remand order? Was the father a flight-risk or was he likely to try to influence witnesses of the tragic accident? And why eight days and not two days, if a remand order was necessitated by procedure? Do the police really need eight days to complete an investigation of what was clearly an accident, and for which they have more than adequate evidence?

There are many cases in which judges either refuse to grant a remand request altogether or approve fewer days than what police have requested. By what reasoning had the Paphos district court judge approved the maximum number of days for a remand order for the case? Were the witnesses that would be called in to give testimony so many the police would need eight days to complete the questioning. Was there such a mystery surrounding the accident that the police would require so many days to complete their investigative work, considering several witnesses had already been questioned, according to the officer appearing in court?

The police are investigating the father in connection with a case of causing death by reckless, negligent and dangerous act and for failing in his responsibility as a person having the care of another. We expect the Paphos police will also investigate the safety of facilities at the hotel in which the accident happened, instead of placing all the blame on the father, who was sobbing when the investigating officer tried to recount the circumstances of the case.

The British man appeared in court without a lawyer and did not object to his eight-day remand, although he should have done, because it was ludicrously unreasonable request by the police. Less than 24 hours after the tragic loss of his boy, the man, understandably, was in no position to argue with the police officer about his remand. The court could have offered the man some protection, by questioning the need for the remand – and the length – requested by the police, but it did not.

It was a bad day for the police and the courts, both of which seemed to have gone out of their way to show complete disregard for human suffering.