Petition For Appeal Against Arrest Decision
…………. ( ) CRIMINAL COURT OF PEACE
QUERY NO: Ankara ( ) Criminal Judicature of Peace 2021/……. File with Enquiry Number
FILE INFORMATION : Ankara CBS Ankara …………. Prosecutor’s Office dated 16/08/2021 and numbered 2021/….. Investigation Numbered File
Arrest Warrant
Appellant Suspect : A….. B….. (T.C.:………..)
ADDRESS
Attorney: Lawyer ……………..
Accused Offence : According to Article … of the Turkish Penal Code
Arrest Warrant
Date Given :16/08/2021
SUBJECT OF THE REQUEST :
Your Honour Judge’s decision dated 16/08/2021, 2021/……. It is about our objections against the decision of “DETENTION of the suspect within the scope of the measure proportionate to the imputed offence” given in the decision numbered query and our request for release.
OUR EXPLANATIONS :
Ankara ( ) Criminal Judgeship of Peace dated 16/08/2021, 2021/……. Query (Ankara CBS Ankara ………. Prosecutor’s Office dated 16/08/2021 and numbered 2021/….. Investigation numbered letter) in the statement interrogation record numbered:
“… the existence of concrete evidence indicating strong suspicion of crime within the scope of the file, the fact that the crime attributed is one of the catalogue crimes listed in Article 100/3-a of the Criminal Procedure Code, the suspect has the possibility of fleeing and obscuring the evidence, for these reasons, the judicial control provisions will be insufficient, and the arrest of the suspect in accordance with Article 101 of the Criminal Procedure Code within the scope of the measure in proportion to the crime charged within the scope of the arrest conditions in Article 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 5 of the ECHR.”
Decision has been given.
However, since the conditions necessary for the decision of detention have not been established, we have come to the issue of objecting to the detention decision in question. Namely
1. The conditions in Article 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code have not been fulfilled.
Considering the right to liberty and security of the person guaranteed by Article 5 of the ECHR and Article 19 of our Constitution, it is clear that arrest is a measure, and if the conditions for arrest are not met, arrest should be considered as a punishment given to the suspect.
According to Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the conditions that can be accepted as a reason for arrest are “the existence of concrete facts that arouse the suspicion that the suspect or the accused will flee, hide or escape; the behaviour of the suspect or the accused creates strong suspicion of destroying, concealing or changing evidence, attempting to pressure witnesses, victims or others.”
As a matter of fact, these conditions have not been fulfilled. The suspect has no suspicion of fleeing, he has a fixed place of residence. The suspect cannot obscure the evidence.
2. Arrest is the last measure.
The Court should order the application of judicial control before reaching a decision on detention. If the situation intended by the arrest can be achieved by another measure, the Court should observe this situation. Otherwise, it is clear that arrest will be a punishment given to the suspect rather than a measure. This point is also fixed by the case law of the ECtHR.
3. In the incident,
there is no activity or intention of the client. Despite this, the detention decision issued without considering the judicial control decision may create irreparable situations for the client in the future. The arrest decision is against the law and procedure. As will be seen as a result of the situation that will become clear after the trial in the future, detention is a very severe measure.
4. There are no facts indicating the existence of strong criminal suspicion against the suspect client.
Although the decision of detention has been made on the grounds that the suspect has the possibility of fleeing and obscuring the evidence and that the judicial control provisions will be insufficient for these reasons, it is clear in the file that the evidence has been collected to a significant extent. There is no possibility of destruction or alteration of the evidence. Because the evidence of the alleged offence has already been transferred to the judicial authorities and taken into custody. Therefore, there is no situation in which the client can prevent the collection of evidence. Moreover, the suspect client has a fixed residence and there is no possibility of escape.
5. Continued detention of the suspect will prevent him from continuing his professional activities and will undermine his professional reputation in the long term.
This situation will cause irreparable damages to the client and his family for which he earns a living. Even from this point of view, the detention decision ceases to be a precautionary measure for both the client and his family and becomes a punishment; it is against the procedure and the law.
In line with all these explanations, the detention of the suspect client is an excessive measure. As we requested at the hearing, the suspect should be released.
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST :
For all the reasons explained above and to be taken into consideration ex officio,
1.Ankara ( ) Criminal Judicature of Peace 2021/……. To lift the arrest warrant issued within the scope of the File No. 2021/ and to release the suspect client,
2. If your judgeship is of the opposite opinion, the Continuation of the Arrest Decision shall be turned into a judicial control in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code 109 et seq,
3. In case our request is rejected, we respectfully request that our file be sent to the competent authority for a decision to be made in line with our evacuation request. 08.2021
Requesting Eviction
Suspect A….. B….. Defence Counsel
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.