At the third hearing in the trial over the killing of journalist Hakan Tosun, the prosecutor asked the court to convict and sentence two defendants on charges of intentional killing.
The court adjourned the hearing until 10:30 a.m. on Oct. 7 after taking into account a request from the defendants’ lawyers for additional time to prepare their defense statements.
Rabia Çetin
The third hearing in the trial over the killing of journalist Hakan Tosun, who was beaten to death on a street in Istanbul’s Esenyurt district on Oct. 10, 2025, was held at the Bakırköy 17th High Criminal Court. The hearing, which had been expected to conclude with a verdict, was adjourned until Oct. 7.
Police barricade corridor outside courtroom
Heavy security measures were put in place around the courthouse and outside the courtroom ahead of the hearing, which had been scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. Riot police carrying shields were deployed on the floor where the courtroom is located.
Police cleared the floor, while journalists were moved behind a barricade.
Only four journalists were allowed into the courtroom, along with lawyers representing Tosun’s family, defense lawyers and members of parliament. An additional courtroom, where Turkey’s SEGBİS judicial videoconferencing system was activated, was opened for other journalists and representatives of civil society organizations who wanted to follow the proceedings.
It was also observed that one member of the judicial panel had been replaced.
The two jailed defendants, Abdurrahman Murat and Adnan Şahin, attended the hearing by SEGBİS from the prisons where they are being held.
Prosecutor seeks convictions for intentional killing
After the defendants’ identities were confirmed, the prosecutor was asked to present his opinion on the merits. Reiterating the opinion he had submitted between hearings, the prosecutor asked the court to convict and sentence Murat and Şahin separately for “intentional killing” as joint perpetrators under Articles 37/1 and 81/1 of the Turkish Penal Code, and to order that they remain in pretrial detention.
The prosecutor also said there had been no act by Tosun that would warrant the application of a sentence reduction for “unjust provocation.”
Lawyers for the defendants said they had not had sufficient time to prepare their defense statements in response to the prosecutor’s opinion and submitted an excuse to the court. The presiding judge rejected the request.
Hakan Tosun’s mother: ‘I want them to go through what I have’
Asked for their final statements in response to the prosecutor’s opinion, Hakan Tosun’s family requested that the defendants be convicted and sentenced for the charges against them.
Tosun’s mother said, “I want them to receive life sentences. They can talk to their children, but I cannot talk to mine. I want them to go through what I have.”
Lawyer Cemal Yücel says defendants attacked Hakan Tosun with intent to kill
Cemal Yücel, a lawyer representing Hakan Tosun’s family, told the court that the defendants had acted with intent to kill, arguing that they returned to attack Tosun a second time and that the intensity and number of blows supported that conclusion.
“If the killing had not been captured by two separate cameras, we might never have reached this point, because the defendants attempted to destroy evidence,” Yücel said in response to the prosecutor’s opinion. “In the second attack after the initial assault, Abdurrahman Murat first strikes Hakan Tosun. Adnan Şahin, who claims he did not hit him, then kicks him and violently shakes him. There are also statements from four witnesses about this. If the defendants had not intended to kill him, they would not have returned and attacked him again after the first assault. They came back to finish the attack they had left incomplete.”
Yücel also rejected allegations made by defense lawyers about Tosun.
“The defense statements seeking to smear the victim, Hakan Tosun, and suggesting that he deserved to die are slanderous,” he said. “The footage exists, and witness statements concerning allegations of harassment in the incident on the Metrobus are also slanderous. There is other evidence showing that the defendants intended to kill him.”
Istanbul’s Metrobus is a bus rapid transit system that runs on dedicated lanes across much of the city.
“It is alleged that Hakan attacked them while he was sitting at the base of a utility pole at the time of the incident,” Yücel said. “Instead of helping a person sitting on the ground, the defendants struck him with the intent to kill. There was no unjust provocation. The allegation that Hakan was disturbing people was not directed at the defendants.”
Yücel also challenged defense statements that Tosun had used drugs before the incident, which lawyers for the defendants had based on a report by Turkey’s Forensic Medicine Institute.
“Although defense statements have claimed that Hakan used narcotics before the incident and cited the Forensic Medicine Institute report as evidence, the reason the report found a very small amount — 1 ml — of fentanyl in his blood was that he was given medication at the hospital for pain relief,” Yücel said. “Fentanyl is found in many pain-relief medications.”
Citing rulings by Turkey’s Court of Cassation, Yücel said, “Considering the intensity and number of the blows, the intent to kill is clear. It is also clear that the defendants committed the alleged offense jointly. We ask that the defendants be convicted and sentenced for killing Hakan Tosun and that no sentence reduction be applied.”
Hakan Bozyurt, another lawyer representing Tosun’s family, then took the floor. The presiding judge said no verdict would be issued in the case at the hearing, adding that if the court ruled in the absence of the defendants’ lawyers, the judgment could be overturned by a regional appeals court.
Bozyurt asked the court to file a criminal complaint against Yusuf Özakdağ, whom Tosun’s lawyers have described as a “third suspect” but who has not been included in the case file. He also requested that Tosun’s personal belongings be returned to the family. The court did not rule on Bozyurt’s request concerning Özakdağ.
Asked to give their defense statements in response to the prosecutor’s opinion, the defendants said they would not make statements. Lawyers for Abdurrahman Murat did not attend the hearing, while lawyers for Adnan Şahin requested additional time to prepare their response to the prosecutor’s opinion. The defense lawyers also requested the defendants’ release and acquittal.
Without taking a recess, the presiding judge then announced that the hearing would be adjourned until 10:30 a.m. on Oct. 7.
