Exploring mitigation and aggravation: a socio-legal analysis of sentencing in Cyprus

Thesis

This thesis examines how judges in Cyprus apply mitigating and aggravating factors at sentencing. Although sentencing has been widely studied, these factors have received less sustained attention than other aspects of the process. They form a recognised element of judicial discretion in common law jurisdictions, though their application remains unsettled. There is no shared understanding of what renders a factor mitigating or aggravating, and judicial assessments often diverge, revealing conceptual uncertainty, limited appellate direction, and reliance on assumptions. In Cyprus, judges retain broad discretion to determine which factors are relevant and the weight each should carry. In the absence of a sentencing council, outcomes may differ and judicial reasoning may be harder to examine. While discretion enables individualised justice, it may also weaken consistency and reviewability within the Cypriot context. The present study constitutes the first hybrid (doctrinal and empirical) analysis of sentencing factors in Cyprus, combining a taxonomy with appellate analysis, qualitative interviews, and examination of judicial reasoning, sentencing method, and penal theory. It addresses how factors are identified, explained, and weighed, and how premises influence those assessments. Although centred on Cyprus, the analysis contributes to wider discussions on transparency, justification, and structure in sentencing. It shows how clearer reasoning on mitigating and aggravating factors may support fairness, legitimacy, and the responsible exercise of judicial discretion.

Authors: Santis, NG

• DOI: 10.5287/ora-vmgkn41a0
• Type of award: DPhil
• Level of award: Doctoral
• Awarding institution: University of Oxford
• Language: English
• Keywords: mitigation and aggravation; criminal sentencing and punishment; judicial sentencing decision making; proportionality; penal theory; judicial methodology