It seems that with a few exceptions, the easy and effective outline – due to the lack of the need to conduct a trial – is on the track of Article 80 to the Penal Law. In the case before us, the respondent chose, first, this route. His request for compensation was rejected (although the right of appeal was not exhausted). The respondent then chose the second track, of an action under The Torts Ordinance. Such a tactic is also not flawed in itself. As explained, rejection of an application under Article 80 It does not necessarily establish a silencing of a company. This is certainly the case in the present case, when the respondent's appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected, while it was determined that the matter would be fully clarified within the scope of the tort claim. However, once the tort claim has been filed, it must be examined according to the strict standards set by law and case law. It should be noted that it is possible that the tort route is more suitable for the plaintiff in this case, due to his emotional reaction that stems from his personality structure, as indicated by the opinion. In this he differs from another defendant who was detained for a period of several months, where the very arrest as an infringement of his liberty on a general level is what constitutes the basis for the damage.
Such an examination led me to the following conclusion: there is a causal connection between the negligence of the police and a significant part of the respondent's period of detention – fifty days (out of a total of 88 days). In addition, there is a causal connection between the negligence of the police and the difficult detention experience that the respondent underwent during the entire period of his detention. This experience includes the manner in which the interrogation was conducted towards the respondent at the professional level – omissions such as the failure to capture the diary and the delay in issuing the outputs and carrying out the location, as well as the inaccuracies presented to the court, and the manner in which they affected the respondent. To the experience of detention, we must add – separately and cumulatively – the manifestations of violence and the attempt to force the respondent to masturbate in front of his interrogators.