The third hearing of the case in which 26 people, including YENİ Party Istanbul Provincial Chairman Özgür Çelik, were tried regarding the events that took place when the detained Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM) Mayor and Presidential Candidate Ekrem İmamoğlu came to Çağlayan Courthouse to testify on January 31, was held.
Ozgur Celik; While he did not attend the hearing held by the 18th Criminal Court of First Instance in the 27th High Criminal Court room, the 4 defendants and the lawyers were present in the hall.
All four people who defended themselves in court denied the accusations made against them.
The judge asked the defendants, "Were you forced to participate or did you come of your own free will?, How did you learn?, Did you damage public property? Did you resist the police?, Did you see it being done?" He asked questions like:
In the defenses, it was claimed that "a peaceful meeting was turned into an accusation". Stating that there is no footage in the file indicating that they damaged police or public property, the defendants said that they did not hear the warning to "disperse" due to the crowd, that they were exposed to pepper gas and were prevented from leaving the area.
One of the defendants said that his baby was born only 40 days before the incident, that he did not have a duty or membership in the party, and that he was left alone in the field. Another defendant stated that he was only a party member and that he went to the area upon the call on social media.
The defendants, who denied all accusations, requested their acquittal.
The third police officer, who was included in the file as a "complainant", was also heard in court. The complainant police officer heard in the first hearing said that he fell to the ground and his arm was broken under the pressure of the crowd during the fight, but he could not identify any of the defendants. The police officer heard in the second hearing stated that he fell during the chaos but that no one pushed him and that he did not complain about the defendants. The complainant police officer, who was heard in the third hearing today, also gave up his complaint.
The police officer stated that he gave up filing a complaint and did not want to participate in the case.
The judge asked the police officer, "Can shields be damaged with stones, sticks, kicks or punches? How can they be broken?" he asked.
The police officer responded by saying, "He cannot be harmed without interference."
The judge then asked, "Did you see that he was resisted?" posed the question. The police officer said, "Negative. It is not possible in that turmoil."
The police asked the judge: "Was the announcement made to disperse?" He answered the question, "I remember it being done." The judge later asked, "Didn't it disperse despite that?" He answered the question, "I'm not sure."
While the lawyers reiterated their demand for the police officers who signed the crime scene report to be heard, the hearing prosecutor demanded in his interim opinion that the deficiencies in the file be eliminated.
Çelik and 25 names; Another postponement decision was issued in the case where a prison sentence of 3 years, 11 months to 17 years was requested for the charges of "resisting to prevent the execution of duty", "participating unarmed in unlawful meetings and marches and not dispersing spontaneously despite the warning", "intentional injury", "damage to public property".
