So far the sequence of proceedings and the summary of the judgment, and hence the arguments of the parties in the appeals before us.
The main points of the state's appeal
- The main argument in the State's appeal is that in its sweeping judgment, the trial court adopted the respondent's version while ignoring the material evidence and the overall picture that emerges from it, as well as ignoring the judicial decisions that were given in real time, including the decision to detain the respondent until the end of the proceedings, and the District Court's decision that rejected the respondent's request for compensation in accordance with the Section 80(a) to the Penal Law. The state complained that the trial court's criticism of the police was unusually harsh, with excessive harm to the investigators and police officers who testified in the course of the proceeding, as well as to those who did not testify.
In the state's view, the investigation and prosecution policy that guided the investigation and prosecution bodies was professional and reasonable at the time, taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the case, as reflected in the decision to detain the respondent until the end of the proceedings. The respondent's claims regarding the conduct of the police officers and the abuse of him were raised by him for the first time in this case, and were not raised in any of the many legal proceedings that were conducted in his case, including the proceeding under Section 80(a) to the Penal Law, and without any hint in the investigation material, and thus they suffer from a real delay, which harms the state's ability to defend against them.
- The state detailed the alleged evidence that was presented to the court and the State Attorney's Office in real time, and claimed that the trial court ignored this evidence and examined it as "wisdom after the fact." Only after the decision to detain the respondent until the end of the proceedings did the respondent raise a new alibi claim and agreed to conduct a voice recognition lineup. The new evidence was also not conclusive, but since doubts arose as to their fairness, the prosecution decided to withdraw the indictment, not without doubt. Even in the decision under Section 80(a) of the Penal Law, it was determined that the prima facie evidence was sufficient to form a reasonable expectation in the plaintiff of the respondent's conviction. There were indeed inaccuracies in the memorandum submitted to the court, but the material investigative material in the case was much broader, and it was what was the basis for the decision to detain the respondent until the end of the proceedings. In any event, even assuming that there was a flaw in the conduct of the police, the decision to detain the respondent until the end of the proceedings severs the causal connection between the conduct of the police and the arrest and the damage alleged thereafter.
- As to the amount of compensation, the state argued that the amount awarded to the respondent for non-pecuniary damage greatly exceeded the accepted standard of approximately NIS 3,000 for each day of detention, and that in this case it was an arrest made in accordance with a lawful judicial order.
The main points of the respondent's response and his appeal
- The respondent argued that the state's appeal is directed against findings of fact, impressions of the witnesses and findings of reliability, in which there is no way for an appellate court to intervene.
The respondent pointed to a number of issues that, according to him, were not cross-examined, including: the delay in filing the claim; his claim that he was beaten and forced to masturbate in front of the interrogators; and explanations he gave regarding these and other statements he made to the informant. The state did not bring to testify the plaintiff who claimed at the hearing of the request to detain him until the end of the proceedings, a plaintiff who he claimed misled the court.