In short
A meeting between a detained person and a lawyer is the person under a detention measure meeting defence counsel for the defence, and it is not a copy of a family visit. The purpose is preparation of the statement, the defence, and an objection to the measure. One is not treated as having gone inside before the power of attorney and the identity document the institution asks for are complete. The length of the meeting and an article number are not in this text.
Confidentiality is not the rule of the family's open visit. A claim of listening is read separately from the meeting itself. A meeting with a convicted person is not a copy of this measure either. A route is not chosen before the document is seen.
Preparation of the defence is not a family conversation
What is spoken in the meeting can be the allegation in the file, the statement, and an application against the measure. Relatives asking after someone's health is not the subject of this record. Defence counsel separates what the person told and the line in the minute. The person can open a subject that was not asked, in the meeting. The place of an institution officer in a family visit is not carried onto this meeting by itself.
Preparation can also cover a draft of the petition. The draft does not take the place of the institution's visitor list. If the decision has not yet been served, the meeting is not put in place of service. The document shows which stage was discussed, and a stage is not invented.
Confidentiality and a claim of listening
The confidentiality of the meeting stands under confidentiality in the meeting. A claim that it was listened to is a separate dispute, and this text does not turn that claim into a judgment. An officer waiting at the door does not mean that the content of the conversation was written down. If the content was written, that minute is requested separately. Content that was not written is not added to the petition.
The duty roster stands under working hours. The roster does not carry into this text how many minutes the meeting will last. The length is read from the institution's record, and there are no minutes here. An article number is not written either.
The power of attorney and the institution's record
The institution asks for a power of attorney and an identity document. If a document is missing, the meeting may not take place that day. The gap does not mean that the right of defence has fallen away. A fresh application is the completion of the missing page. A banned device is not the subject of the meeting. A device ban does not give birth to the length, or to an article number, either.
The appointment record shows that the person is detained. When the detention decision was given stands under the detention decision. The decision does not take the place of the minute of the meeting. The two documents are kept separately.
The distinction from a meeting with a convicted person
A meeting of defence counsel with a convicted person stands under a meeting with a convicted person. A general lawyer meeting in a penal institution stands under a lawyer in prison. A detained person is under a measure before the judgment is final. The record of a convicted person is not pasted by itself onto the detained person's petition. The status is read from the institution's document of the person.
A family visit is not this meeting either. A list of relatives does not take the place of the power of attorney. The petition does not merge the two doors in the same sentence. The length of the meeting and an article number are not in this distinction either.
The room where the meeting took place is not the hall of the family visit. The institution's room record shows who went inside. If there is no record, one does not say the meeting did not happen, and one does not say it did. The petition does not write the name of the room without a document. A length and an article number are not added to this room record either. A result that someone went inside is not built before the identity document and the power of attorney stand side by side.
The person can also choose to remain silent in the meeting. Silence does not prevent defence counsel from going inside. The minute writes separately whether the silence took place. Silence that was not written does not stand in the petition as if it were there. A family member waiting at the same hour does not make this meeting a family visit. The two doors are two documents, and the decision is read without merging them. There is no length of the meeting here either.
The institution may not give the person the paper that came out of the meeting. A paper that was not given does not mean the meeting did not take place. The petition makes do with the entry document in hand and the power of attorney. An article number is not written onto this missing paper. A length is not added either. A decision is not built before the record the institution kept stands.
What is separated in a meeting with a detained person
A meeting between a detained person and a lawyer is the record of preparation of the defence, and it is read apart from a family visit. The office being in Çankaya does not change the authority of the penal institution; that is read from the document. The length of the meeting and an article number are not written. A meeting with a convicted person is not put in place of this measure in the petition.
Conclusion
A meeting of a detained person with defence counsel is preparation of the defence, and it is not a copy of a family visit. The length of the meeting and an article number are not written. A result is not stated before the power of attorney and the institution's document stand. The frame stands on the criminal law page. The basis is the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271.