Divorced from his first wife, AS made his second marriage to CES in 2009. In November 2020, AS filed a complaint with the police alleging that her husband mistreated her and sexually abused her daughter E.Ç. of his first marriage. The mother moved to another city with her daughter on the grounds that she was threatened with death. AS, in his statement to the inquest, claimed that his wife sexually abused his daughter, and that she also abused herself because she objected. Under the supervision of a psychologist, E.Ç. He also said that his stepfather sexually abused him and that he constantly abused his mother.
RELEASED AFTER DECLARATION
CES, who was detained, denied the charges. An indictment was issued against the stepfather, who was released after his statement, demanding a prison sentence of up to 15 years. Accepting the indictment, Aksaray 1st High Criminal Court rejected AS Çağrı Ayhan Şenel’s lawyer’s request to arrest the accused. The lawyer again seized the court and asked for an arrest warrant to determine the whereabouts of the accused who, according to him, had gone abroad. The court also did not accept this request.
REACT ON SOCIAL NETWORKS
Lawyer Şenel then posted on his social media account: “I openly declare here; the members of the 1st High Criminal Court of Aksaray openly and knowingly behave illegally and commit crimes. They are responsible for the life of a child and if something happens to this child or his mother tomorrow. The responsibility is the chamber of the correctional court”. The President of the 1st High Criminal Court of Aksaray withdrew the case on the grounds that the proceedings could not be conducted within the framework of the principle of fairness and fair trial, and filed a criminal complaint against the lawyer. On the other hand, an arrest warrant was issued against the accused after the appointment of a new committee and the opening of the trial.
A CASE HAS BEEN OPENED FOR UP TO 6 YEARS IN JAIL
Following the head of court’s complaint, a lawsuit was filed against lawyer Şenel in the 2nd Heavy Criminal Court of Aksaray, with the charge of “influencing and targeting the judicial officer”. In his defense, lawyer Şenel stated that the defendant, who had escaped, had threatened to kill his client and his daughter, and that the conditions for his arrest had been met; However, he said the court rejected his request and said, “I only criticized the legal assessment. I did not target anyone and did not try to influence him. I exercised my right to criticize within the framework of my freedom of expression. sharing is not illegal. The influence must be exercised in an unlawful manner, such as bribery or blackmail, for the alleged crime to occur. Afterwards, it turned out that I was right and the court issued an arrest warrant for the accused. accept the charges. I demand my acquittal,” he said.
Expressing his opinion on the merits after the defense of the accused, the prosecutor recalled the provision of Article 26 of the Constitution according to which “everyone has the right to express and disseminate his thoughts and opinions individually or collectively by speech, writing, image or any other means”, and that freedom of expression is not only protected by society. He emphasized that it covers not only accepted or innocuous information and ideas, but also hurtful, shocking or alarming information and ideas. Referring to rulings that officials should be more tolerant than normal citizens of persistent criticism, the prosecutor requested the acquittal of the accused Şenel. The court acquitted Şenel following his defense against the opinion. In the reasoning of the decision, it was stated that the alleged crime should have been committed by unlawful means and that the message in question was of a critical nature and fell within the scope of freedom of expression.
‘PRÉCAL FOR LAWYERS’
Assessing the decision, Lawyer Şenel said, “The court gave a verdict of acquittal in the case against me. I think this decision is very important and has a precedent for lawyers. The court’s decision was correct and very good conclusions were in terms of the right of defense and freedom of expression. I wish the case had not come to this stage; “But at least I think justice has been returned,” he said. (ADH)