Eyal's theft, the appropriate penalty range, insists that when a closed plea agreement is presented to the court, and when there is no doubt that the proposed punishment will be adopted, it is possible, in the name of efficiency, to waive these stages, although it is not clear whether this position was adopted by the Supreme Court (ibid., at p. 557). According to an article by Keren Weinschel-Margal and Inbal Galon, "The effect of the amendment to the law on the construction of judicial discretion in sentencing to prison sentences (Research Department of the Judiciary, 2014, para. 3.3a.), this is indeed the practice adopted by the courts in these cases). However, when there is doubt as to whether the agreed punishment meets the balancing test, the court must examine the arrangement on its merits. According to Gazal-Eyal, the appropriate punishment compound (ibid., at p. 557), the appropriate punishment compound, in these cases:
"When there is doubt as to whether the agreed punishment meets the balancing test, the court is obligated to examine the arrangement on its merits. In such a case, despite the difficulties, the court must determine the appropriate punishment range and the appropriate punishment within the complex..... Only after determining all of these will the court be able to examine whether the relief proposed in the framework of the settlement, i.e., the gap between the appropriate punishment within the compound and the punishment determined in the arrangement, is justified according to the balancing test set out in the plea bargaining rule."
The Supreme Court in the Galkin case adopted these words, at least with regard to cases in which the agreed punishment is ostensibly within the scope of punishment. However, the court insisted that there was another position as well. For this reason, too, it would have been appropriate for the matter to be explicitly regulated in legislation.
8.4. Should Approve a Lenient Plea Bargain
The Supreme Court ruled that even if there were difficulties in the plea bargain, if they did not get to the root of the matter, the court must approve the plea bargain. This was noted by the Supreme Court in the matter of the Movement for Quality Government in the Pinto case (beginning with paragraph 73 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice Uri Shoham):