Rabia Çetin
A verdict has been issued in the trial of a lawyer and three journalists who were prosecuted over news reports and social media posts alleging that the prosecutor handling the investigation into the Yenidoğan gang had been removed from the case. Journalists Dinçer Gökçe, Nilay Can, and Veysi Dündar were acquitted. Lawyer İrem Çiçek was acquitted of insult but sentenced to 10 months in prison for “publicly disseminating misleading information.” The announcement of the verdict was deferred.
The case was filed against Dinçer Gökçe, editor-in-chief of halktv.com.tr; Nilay Can, editor-in-chief of gazetepencere.com; journalist Veysi Dündar, and lawyer İrem Çiçek, along with one other individual. They were charged with “publicly disseminating misleading information” due to reports and posts related to the claim that “the prosecutor who dismantled the Yenidoğan gang was removed from the case.” The final hearing was held at Bakırköy 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance.
The hearing, which was scheduled to start at 10 a.m., began with a half-hour delay due to the court’s heavy workload.
Plainclothes police officers also attended the hearing, which was joined by defendants Dinçer Gökçe, İrem Çiçek, and their lawyers. Defendants Nilay Can and Veysi Dündar did not attend. When the defendants asked why police were present, the judge said it was for “security reasons.”
Following identity verification, the prosecutor reiterated the opinion on the merits and demanded the punishment of the journalists and the lawyer for the alleged crimes.
“My client was on leave when the article was published”
Nilay Can’s lawyer, who spoke first in response to the opinion, said:
“My client was on leave on the day the article was published. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that she committed a crime. Only 31 people saw the article through her social media post. The elements of the crime are not present within the scope of press and expression freedom. We demand her acquittal.”
“Who requested the plainclothes police to monitor the hearing?”
Defendant İrem Çiçek, responding to the opinion, stated:
“Police entered the courtroom without any request from the court. It is unclear who requested their presence, and I request that this be recorded in the minutes.”
The judge replied to the police's request to attend the hearing for security by saying, “I don’t believe there will be any security issue, but you may observe.” In response to Çiçek’s insistence that the issue be recorded, the judge said, “This is a public hearing; ordinary citizens can attend.” However, the judge ultimately fulfilled the request and recorded the presence of the police officers in the minutes.
“No permission from the Ministry of Justice was obtained to investigate me”
In her defense statement, İrem Çiçek said:
“Because of my profession, the procedure requiring permission from the Ministry of Justice was not followed. No evidence was collected in my favor, and the witnesses I requested were not heard. One of these was the prosecutor himself, and the others were the secret witness ‘Cesur’ and my father, Dursun Çiçek. The prosecutor asked for punishment for insult, but the indictment did not state which of my words constituted insult. Therefore, I will not make a defense regarding the insult charge.
As for the charge of publicly spreading misleading information, the elements of the crime do not exist. The information was not false, did not cause fear or panic among the public, and was not capable of disrupting public peace. I request acquittal.”
“The prosecutor’s statement must be clarified”
Çiçek’s lawyer Mustafa Özalp also noted that no permission had been obtained from the Ministry of Justice to prosecute his client. He said:
“The opinion does not include an explanation regarding the insult charge. The public prosecutor must clarify this. My client asked a follow-up question after the statement that the prosecutor was removed from the case in which she was the complainant’s attorney.
To constitute the crime, the action must be aimed at deliberately causing fear, panic, or anxiety among the public. Viewed from this angle, the attorney’s question does not constitute a criminal offense. The information given was not false. It was confirmed through three separate sources. Public peace was not disrupted. We request my client’s acquittal.”
Çiçek’s other lawyer, Serkan Güneş, stated that the case should be dismissed due to procedural errors and, if not dismissed, his client should be acquitted.
“We don’t publish false news out of fear of punishment, but out of loyalty to the profession”
Journalist Dinçer Gökçe, also responding to the prosecutor’s opinion, said in his defense:
“I have been a journalist for 22 years. I’m a reporter and still working in the field, and also serve as news director. I shouldn’t even be here. Around 200–300 articles are published on the website daily, and it’s not possible for me to check all of them. We reported on İrem Hanım’s tweet, but we quickly contacted the Ministry of Justice to confirm it.
Above all, we do not produce false news—not out of fear of punishment, but due to our respect and commitment to the profession. I am facing an unfair trial and demand acquittal.”
Gökçe’s lawyer, Gökçe Yavuzer, also requested acquittal.
“The indictment has no legal basis”
Veysi Dündar’s lawyer, Ali İmran Akgüncü, stated:
“My client merely retweeted the news on social media, and when a correction was published, he retweeted that too. For the crime to be constituted, my client must have known the news was false. But this condition was not met. The shared news did not disrupt public peace or cause fear or panic. None of the claims in the indictment are substantiated. The indictment has no legal basis. If the court does not agree, we request my client’s acquittal.”
In an additional defense, İrem Çiçek said:
“I referred a nurse to Prosecutor Engin to testify as a secret witness. The prosecutor said he was no longer handling the case. Based on this, I posted that he had been removed from the case. The Ministry of Justice also said he was removed due to being a party to the case. So, I did not make a false statement. The other defendants acted as if they were correcting me in their defenses, and I request special attention be paid to this.”
Journalists acquitted, lawyer İrem Çiçek sentenced to prison
After hearing the final statements from the defendants, all requested acquittal. The judge then took a five-minute recess before announcing the verdict.
The court ruled that the elements of the crime were not present and acquitted journalists Nilay Can, Veysi Dündar, and Dinçer Gökçe. İrem Çiçek was acquitted of insult but sentenced to 10 months in prison for “publicly disseminating misleading information.” The announcement of the verdict was postponed (deferred judgment).
