In Crim. Appeal 921/17 Awaji Abu Zaileh v. State of Israel (published in Nevo, May 28, 2017), the Honorable Judge Yoram Danziger reiterated the words (in paragraph 16 of his judgment):
"This Court has reiterated many times that the provisions of Amendment 113 to the Penal Law, 5737-1977, which was enacted after 1958/98 [Extended Some] do not contradict the approach of proper balance. In other words, the trial court is authorized and even required to examine plea bargains against the background of the appropriate punishment range, which must be formulated in accordance with the concrete provisions of Amendment 113 ... In this context, it is appropriate to reiterate the distinction between the scope of punishment and the scope of punishment; At the structural level, an agreed punishment range is determined in a plea bargain by the parties, while a punishment range is determined by the court in accordance with the provisions of Amendment 113 to the Law. On the substantive level, the scope of punishment reflects the result of the bargaining power of each of the parties to the proceeding in the circumstances of the case, while the scope of punishment reflects a normative determination by the court regarding the proper balance between the relevant considerations set forth in the law."
However, the Supreme Court reiterated the need for legislation in this context. The Honorable Justice Noam Sohlberg noted this in the Metzger case (in paragraph A of his judgment), and emphasized the long time that has passed since the bill was introduced:
"Since the enactment of Amendment 113 to the Penal Law, the question of the reciprocal relationship between the construction of judicial discretion in punishment and plea bargains has frequently arised, especially with regard to the scope of punishment on the one hand, and the scope of punishment within the framework of a plea bargain on the other. ....
This does not make the legislative work to which I was referring in my remarks there, because in the wording of the Criminal Procedure Bill (Amendment No. 65) (Plea Bargain), 5770-2010, which is on the Knesset table and discussed in the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee (H.H. 536 (5770) 1362), there is no answer to the issue at hand. In the explanatory notes to the bill, it was noted that "the relationship between plea bargains and the construction of discretion in punishment will be determined in the framework of an amendment to the proposed law after the Penal Law is amended... regarding the construction of discretion in punishment" (ibid., at p. 1363). Since Amendment 113 came into effect more than 5 years ago (on January 2, 2012), there has been an urgent need to repay the bill, especially since the need to "synchronize" Amendment 113 with plea bargains has become evident time and time again in the field. Since the bill regarding plea bargains is still in its infancy, it is therefore necessary to include appropriate provisions in the bill and to promote its enactment."