According to Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in order to suspend the announcement of the verdict, the sentence imposed on the defendant at the end of the trial for the crime charged must be two years or less in prison or a judicial fine. The defendant must not have been previously convicted of a deliberate crime. The court must consider the defendant’s personality traits and their attitude and behavior at the hearing and determine that they will not re-commit the crime. The damage suffered by the victim or the public as a result of the crime must be fully compensated through restitution, restoration to the state of pre-crime status, or compensation. It should be noted that the term “damage” here refers to pecuniary damage; moral damages are excluded from the scope of the judgment.
Court of Cassation Criminal General Assembly, Merits No: 2012/2-1418, Decision No: 2013/424;
“…One of the objective conditions for deciding to suspend the announcement of the verdict is the exact restitution of the damage suffered by the victim or the public as a result of the commission of the crime, restoring it to the state it existed before the crime, or completely compensating it. What is meant here is material damage; moral damage should not be considered within this scope…”[2]
Court of Cassation 3rd Criminal Chamber, Merits No: 2010/8688, Decision No: 2010/13800;
“…while the court should have determined the harm inflicted on the victim through a convincing and simple investigation, asked the defendant whether they would redress this damage, and, if other conditions were met, a decision to suspend the pronouncement of the verdict should have been made. However, the aforementioned deficiencies were not addressed, and the moral damage not considered within the scope of the damage was also considered, and the decision that there was no basis for suspending the pronouncement of the verdict against the defendant… necessitates reversal…”[3]
[4]In cases where the defendant fails to immediately fulfill the condition of fully compensating the damage suffered by the victim or the public by restitution in kind, restoring it to the state it existed before the crime, or providing compensation, a decision to suspend the pronouncement of the verdict may be issued on the condition that the defendant fully compensates the damage caused to the victim or the public by paying monthly installments during the probation period. Furthermore, it is not necessary for the defendant to redress the damage; third parties may also compensate on behalf of the defendant through compensation, restitution, or restitution in kind. Likewise, in cases where no damage has occurred, it is decided to postpone the announcement of the verdict without requiring this condition to be met.
Court of Cassation, 2nd Criminal Chamber, Merits No: 2008/22645, Decision No: 2008/19206;
“…The decision that Article 231/5 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 does not apply to the defendant, based on the grounds that the defendant failed to compensate the victim and that the conditions for the case were not met, without considering that the victim did not claim compensation and that no damages reflected in the case file have been determined, necessitated reversal.”
It should be noted that the fact that the defendant is being prosecuted for another intentional crime does not preclude a decision to suspend the pronouncement of the verdict. Similarly, having been previously convicted of a crime committed through negligence, whether unconscious or conscious, does not preclude a decision to suspend the pronouncement of the verdict.
Furthermore, for a decision to suspend the pronouncement of the verdict to be granted, the defendant must expressly consent to this decision. The defendant’s compensation for the damages does not mean that the defendant has accepted the suspension of the verdict; the acceptance must be made explicitly. Therefore, if the defendant does not accept, it is not possible to order the suspension of the verdict.
On the other hand, if the verdict is suspended, the prison sentence imposed cannot be suspended, and if it is short-term, it cannot be converted into alternative sanctions.
Since the suspension of the verdict is not a judgment, appeal or cassation cannot be filed against this decision; an objection is possible. The Court of Cassation is of the opinion that, in the event of an objection, the reviewing authority’s review should be limited to determining the objective circumstances of the crime and the defendant, as stipulated in Article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court of Cassation General Assembly of Criminal Cases, Merits No: 2011/1-57, Decision No: 2011/57;
“…As explained in the decision of the General Assembly of Criminal Prosecutors dated 03.02.2009 and numbered 13-12, the legal remedy that can be applied against the decisions to postpone the announcement of the verdict is not appeal, but objection, as clearly stated in Article 231, paragraph 12 of the Civil Prosecution Law No. 5271. The authority responsible for reviewing the decisions of the High Criminal Courts subject to objection is, in accordance with Article 268/3-c of the Civil Prosecution Law No. 5271, if there is more than one high criminal court in that location, the court following it in number is the one; if there is only one high criminal court in that location, the closest high criminal court is the one. In this regard, the objection of the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation is accepted, the reversal decision of the Special Chamber against the defendant D.A. for the crime of destroying criminal evidence is annulled, and the file is referred to the objection authority in order to decide on the request considered as an objection, in accordance with Article 268 of the Civil Prosecution Law No. 5271.” In order to send it back to its place, a decision must be made to return it to its place…”[5]
If a decision is made to suspend the announcement of the verdict, this decision is recorded in a system. These records can only be used if requested by a public prosecutor, judge, or court in connection with an investigation or prosecution, for the purpose stipulated in Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the decision in question does not appear in the criminal record.
If a decision is made to suspend the announcement of the verdict, the defendant is subject to a five-year probation period. For children, this period is three years, according to Article 23 of Child Protection Law No. 5395.
The statute of limitations for the case is suspended during the probation period. The possibility of an announced suspended verdict due to a new and intentional crime allegedly committed by the defendant during the probation period depends on the finalization of the conviction for this new crime. If the new verdict is not finalized within the probation period, the statute of limitations for the case related to the suspended verdict will continue from where it left off at the end of the probation period.
If the defendant does not intentionally commit a new crime during the probation period and complies with the obligations related to the probation measure, the suspended judgment will be annulled and the case will be dismissed. An appeal may be filed against the dismissal decision.
[1] This article uses the following academic article: üngör, Devrim, and Güneş Okuyucu-ergün. “Hükmün Açıklanmasının Geri Bırakılması”. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 65, no. 4 (December 2016): 1951-65. https://doi.org/10.1501/Hukfak_0000001850.
[2] Court of Cassation Criminal General Assembly, Merits No: 2012/2-1418, Decision No: 2013/424.
[3] Court of Cassation 3rd Criminal Chamber, Merits No: 2010/8688, Decision No: 2010/13800.
[4] Court of Cassation, 2nd Criminal Chamber, Merits No: 2008/22645, Decision No: 2008/19206.
[5] Court of Cassation General Assembly of Criminal Cases, Merits No: 2011/1-57, Decision No: 2011/57.