In the trial concerning the beating to death of journalist Hakan Tosun in the street, the lawyers for the defendant Abdurrahman Murat did not attend the hearing, citing a “heavy workload.” The trial has been adjourned until 7 October

CANAN COŞKUN, ISTANBUL

The third hearing in the trial of Abdurrahman Murat and Adnan Şahin on charges of “willful murder” was held at at the Bakırköy 17th High Criminal Court on 22 September 2026.

As observed by P24, extensive security measures were in place around the courthouse and outside the courtroom prior to the hearing. Riot police were stationed outside the courtroom holding shields. Four journalists were permitted to enter the courtroom. Also present in the courtroom to observe the proceedings were Evrim Rızvanoğlu, an MP for the New Party; Sera Kadıgil, an MP for the Workers’ Party (TİP); and Levent Tüzel of the Labor Party (EMEP). Hakan Tosun’s family and lawyers, as well as the lawyers for the defendant Adnan Şahin, were present at the hearing. The lawyers for the other defendant, Abdurrahman Murat, however, did not attend the hearing, having submitted a request for leave of absence on the grounds of a heavy workload and a lack of sufficient time to prepare the defense. The defendants, meanwhile, participated in the hearing via the judicial videoconferencing system (SEGBİS) from the prison where they are being held.

Excuse rejected

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge announced that the lawyers for the defendant Abdurrahman Murat had submitted a request for leave of absence, citing a heavy workload and a lack of sufficient time to prepare their defense, and had therefore not attended the hearing. Following this announcement, the judge stated that the request for leave of absence had been rejected.

The prosecutor reiterated their final opinion on the case they had presented on 10 September 2026 and requested that the defendants be sentenced for the impugned crime. The prosecutor also requested that the court order the continuation of their detention alongside the sentence.

Hakan Tosun’s family were then asked for their views on the prosecutor’s opinion. Tosun’s mother said, “I want them to be sentenced to life imprisonment. They can speak to their children, but I cannot. Let them experience what I have gone through.” Tosun’s siblings also stated that they agreed with the prosecutor’s opinion.

Cemal Yücel, one of Hakan Tosun’s family’s lawyers, made a statement regarding the opinion. Yücel said, “Had the killing not been captured on two separate cameras, we might not have seen these days. Because the defendants had attempted to destroy the evidence.” Lawyer Yücel emphasized that there was not a single moment during Tosun’s killing that was not captured on camera. Stating that the defendant Abdurrahman Murat was the first to attack Tosun, lawyer Yücel continued as follows:

“Abdurrahman Murat delivered four extremely violent kicks. The kicks were so forceful that Hakan was sent backwards by them. If there was any wrongdoing, it was directed at Hakan by the defendants. The defendant Murat did not stop there. Adnan Şahin, who had arrived at the head of the other street seven minutes earlier, was waiting there and observing the events; he also went over to him and delivered a kick. Then the two defendants got into the same vehicle and drove into the street.”

Lawyer Yücel recalled that the expert report on the video footage stated it was not clear whether the defendant Adnan Şahin had struck Hakan Tosun at the foot of the electricity pole. However, he noted that the defendant Abdurrahman Murat had stated that Şahin had also struck him.

“Even Adnan Şahin, who is said not to have struck him at all, first kicked him, then shook him and threw him to the ground. All four witnesses stated this and explained that Hakan Tosun’s voice fell silent after Adnan Şahin struck him. If they had not intended to kill him, they would not have kicked him so violently or returned to attack Hakan Tosun a second time,” Yücel said.

“Someone who did not intend to kill would not have fled”

Citing examples from Court of Cassation rulings on cases involving intent to kill, Yücel said, “Given the intensity and number of the blows, the intent to kill is evident.” Lawyer Yücel noted that whilst witness statements and footage relating to the incident on the metrobus Hakan Tosun had boarded before his death had been added to the case file, these were not relevant to the case. Pointing out that the prosecutor had also stated in their final opinion that this incident was not relevant to the case, Yücel said that it had been included in the file to discredit Tosun. Yücel said, “There is further evidence that the defendants intended to cause his death. After the second attack, the defendant Abdurrahman Murat arrived at the scene on a motorbike. By that time, some citizens had gathered. Someone who does not wish for killing would call for an ambulance, but they fled. They did not turn themselves in either. Their intent is clear.”

Speaking on the claim of unjust provocation, Yücel remarked, “For unjust provocation to have occurred, Hakan Tosun would have had to exhibit behavior capable of provoking rage.” 

Lawyer Yücel also responded to the claim put forward by the defendants and their lawyers that “fentanyl was found in his blood.” Yücel explained that this was due to the strong medication administered to Hakan Tosun whilst he was in hospital. Lawyer Yücel stated that the defendants had committed the offense in question as joint perpetrators.

Hakan Tosun’s other lawyer, Hakan Bozyurt, then took the floor. At this point, the presiding judge stated that no verdict would be announced at this hearing, noting that if a decision were made in the absence of the lawyers, the verdict could be overturned by the appellate court. Continuing his remarks, Bozyurt mentioned Yusuf Özakdağ, who had not been included in the case file and whom Tosun’s lawyers described as a “third suspect.” Bozyurt requested that a criminal complaint be filed against this individual and demanded the return of Hakan Tosun’s personal belongings.

If they fail to attend the next hearing, a lawyer will be appointed by the Bar Association

The defendants stated that they were repeating what they had said previously. At this point, the presiding judge asked Abdurrahman Murat where his lawyers were.

When the defendant Murat said he did not know, the presiding judge stated that if they failed to appear at the next hearing, a lawyer would be appointed by the Bar Association. 

The lawyers for the other defendant present in the courtroom requested release and acquittal.

The court adjourned the case until 7 October 2026. No decision was made regarding the request to file a criminal complaint against the third suspect.

Background of the case

Hakan Tosun set out to visit his family living in Esenyurt, Istanbul on 10 October 2025. When he did not return home, his family reported the situation to the police. Around midnight, two reports were made to the police regarding a person lying on the ground in Esenyurt. An ambulance had taken the person lying on the ground to Başakşehir Çam and Sakura Hospital, but since there was neither identification nor anything else on them, their identity could not be determined. For this reason, hospital police recorded the person’s arrival at the hospital around 2:50 a.m. as a “criminal incident”—a person who would later be identified as Hakan Tosun. Tosun, who had bruises on his eyes and neck, was being kept in intensive care in an unconscious state.

While all this was happening, his family and relatives had begun asking on social media where Tosun was. His family learned around 4:00 a.m. via a police call that Tosun was in the hospital, but when they arrived, they could not find him because he had not been registered. His sister, Öznur Tosun, filed a missing person report, after which the police took his fingerprints and located Hakan that way.

On 11 October 2025, the police summoned the suspects involved in the attack on Hakan Tosun to the station via phone. Abdurrahman Murat and Adnan Şahin were sent to pre-trial detention on charges of “intentional assault.” One day later, Hakan Tosun lost his life after a battle for survival in the intensive care unit.

Shortly before Tosun’s death, footage from security cameras showing the attackers were released. According to the footage, there were three people in the group that attacked Tosun. The third person was the motorcyclist who had transported the individuals jailed for attacking Tosun. The motorcyclist, Yusuf Özakdağ was released after giving a statement as a witness.

After the footage was published in the media, it emerged that relatives of the suspects had taken the security camera from the shop that had viewed the location where Tosun was left, and had told the police that they could come and retrieve it if asked.

Hakan Tosun’s funeral took place on 17 October 2025. On the same day, the Istanbul Police Department issued an official statement regarding the events that occurred during the investigation. The statement claimed that the security camera at a nearby business was not recording. An examination was conducted on 300 hours of footage, and footage from 12 different cameras was added to the investigation file. The statement also noted that an investigation had been launched regarding the suspect’s relatives’ seizure of the business’s footage, and that the business owner and two of the suspect’s relatives had been detained and released under judicial supervision.

Hakan Tosun’s lawyers emphasized in their first press statement on 23 October 2025 that the evidence had been collected carelessly, noting that Tosun’s earring was found at the scene a week later. At that time, Tosun’s ID and wallet were missing. His bag had first appeared at the hospital and was later officially recorded in a report at the Mevlana Police Station on 15 October.

Tosun’s family filed a criminal complaint against Özakdağ on 6 March 2026. The petition stated that instead of trying to calm the situation, Özakdağ had watched what was being done to Tosun; therefore, it requested that a public prosecution be initiated against him for the crime of “willful murder.” To fully uncover the incident and determine whether the assailants were in contact with one another or with others, the family requested that HTS records from the time of the incident, as well as before and after, be obtained for all suspects, and that their phones be seized and examined.

The Bakırköy Chief Prosecutor’s Office completed the investigation four days after the Tosun family filed their complaint and prepared the indictment on 10 March. The indictment was based on the preliminary report prepared by the Büyükçekmece Chief Prosecutor’s Office. The indictment sought life imprisonment for Abdurrahman Murat and Adnan Şahin on charges of “willful murder.”

The preliminary report cited as the basis for the indictment suggested that the locations, nature, and extent of the injuries on Tosun’s body could have resulted from a blow to his face and his subsequent fall to the ground. In the preliminary report, which argued that the suspects’ actions were not intended to kill, Tosun was also charged. To support the suspects’ claim that Tosun was intoxicated, the prosecution had sought statements from seven people who were on the same metrobus as Tosun.

The indictment stated that because the suspects were standing very close to each other at the scene, it was not entirely clear who struck whom. Abdurrahman Murat, who claimed he did not strike Tosun, stated that he threw one punch to push him away because Tosun was advancing toward him, while Adnan Şahin claimed he kicked Tosun with his foot to check on him while he was lying on the ground.

The first hearing was held on 6 May 2026. Relatives of Hakan Tosun and journalists who had come to follow the proceedings were subjected to a police intervention involving shields inside the courthouse. During the hearing, passengers on the metrobus Tosun had boarded whilst traveling to Esenyurt, residents of the neighborhood where he was killed, and a third person said to have been involved in the incident were heard as witnesses. It was notable that, whilst giving evidence, a local witness requested state protection for her child out of fear. The prosecutor at the hearing requested that HTS records relating to the witnesses and defendants be included in the case file, and that an investigation be conducted into Yusuf Özakdağ—identified as the third suspect—and that he be questioned in connection with the incident. The court ruled that the HTS records should be included in the case file.

The second hearing was held on 8 July 2026. At this hearing, the defendants and their lawyers claimed that Hakan Tosun had been struck on the head during an altercation on the metrobus he had boarded whilst traveling to Esenyurt.

The third hearing was held on 10 September 2026. At this hearing, the prosecutor announced their final opinion and sought conviction for the impugned crime for both defendants. The case was adjourned until 22 September 2026.