01.11.2026 14:41
The 6-month prison sentence imposed on the defendant for the crime of insult after he called a police officer a jackal during an argument that occurred during an identity check in İzmir was overturned by a majority vote of the 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation. The Chamber stated that the word was rude and discourteous but did not constitute the elements of the crime of insult. One of the members of the Chamber, however, was of the opinion that the word should be deemed an insult.
The 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation overturned the conviction of a defendant sentenced for the offense of "insult" for calling a public official a "jackal," finding the ruling unlawful.
HE ARGUED WITH POLICE DURING AN IDENTITY CHECK
According to the chamber's decision, a dispute broke out between a person whose identity was checked by police in Izmir and the police. A lawsuit was filed against the person for the offense of "insult" for using the word "jackal" toward the police.
The Izmir 10th Criminal Court of First Instance, which conducted the trial, sentenced the defendant to 6 months' imprisonment within the scope of the offense of "insult" set out in Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code.
THE COURT OF APPEAL REJECTED IT, THE COURT OF CASSATION OVERTURNED IT
After the defendant's appeal was rejected by the 10th Criminal Chamber of the Izmir Regional Court of Justice, he appealed the sentence against him, arguing that the decision had been made without sufficient examination and without considering mitigating factors and provocation provisions.
As a result of its review, the 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation found the appeal well-founded and overturned the conviction of the defendant by majority vote.
One of the chamber members expressed a dissenting opinion that the word "jackal" should be considered "insult."
RUDE AND IMPOLITE BUT NOT INSULT
In the chamber's decision, it was stated that the offense of insult requires "the targeting of individuals' honor, dignity, and reputation," and that for this offense to be constituted, "the conduct must be carried out with the aim of humiliating the person."
In the decision, which noted that whether an act/action is derogatory is relative in some cases and may vary according to time, place, and circumstance, the assessment was included that "not every harsh criticism or disturbing statement directed at individuals should be evaluated within the context of the offense of insult; the statements must clearly constitute a concrete act or fact that could offend honor, dignity, and reputation, or the act of swearing."
Within this scope, in the decision stating that the word "jackal" uttered by the defendant was of the nature of a "disturbing, rude, and impolite manner of address," it was recorded that the elements of the offense of "insult" were not constituted in the incident subject to trial.