Court of Cassation overturns local court ruling: Saying this to police is not considered the crime of 'resisting'

The 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation has overturned a 5-month prison sentence handed down to a defendant for the crime of "resisting to prevent the performance of duty" after he told police officers during an argument, "If I call Ankara, you'll see, I'll have you transferred."

According to the Chamber's ruling, an individual living in Konya in 2016 had an argument with police officers at a police station where he had gone to file a complaint, and used the phrases, "If I call Ankara, you'll see, I'll have you transferred."

LOCAL COURT HANDED DOWN A 5-MONTH PRISON SENTENCE

Following a complaint, a lawsuit was filed against the defendant for the crime of "resisting to prevent the performance of duty," and he was sentenced to 5 months in prison by the Konya 12th Criminal Court of First Instance.

The defendant, arguing that his actions did not constitute the crime of "resisting to prevent the performance of duty," appealed the local court's decision.

COURT OF CASSATION OVERTURNED THE LOCAL COURT'S DECISION

The 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which conducted the appeal review, ruled that the conviction should be overturned on the grounds that the defendant's actions did not constitute the alleged crime.

RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION

In the Chamber's decision, it was stated that the crime of "resisting to prevent the performance of duty," regulated under Article 265 of the Turkish Penal Code, is defined as an "act with alternative options" and a "purposeful act."

Pointing out that the crime in question can be committed through executive behaviors in the form of "force or threat," the decision stated that "passive acts of resistance that do not contain typical actions will not constitute this crime."

The decision, which noted that the defendant did not have the authority to change the duty station of the complainant police officers and therefore the alleged crime did not occur, included the following justification:

"In the case subject to the lawsuit, the defendant had no authority or power to change the duty station of the police officers, and when the aforementioned words are evaluated within the context of the entire argument and the context in which they were spoken, they do not constitute the threat element of the crime of preventing the performance of duty; therefore, it was found to be against the law to issue a conviction in writing based on a non-legal justification when the crime of resisting to prevent the performance of duty had not occurred."

News Source: AA