According to the respondent, the tort claim stands on its own, and there is no inference from the decision to detain him until the end of the proceedings, since it was made without the full investigation material being presented to the court. Similarly, there is no inference from the District Court's decision in the application under Section 80(a) to the Penal Law, since it was given without hearing witnesses.
The respondent raised detailed arguments on the merits of the investigation materials and the alleged evidence that were available to the investigators and the State Attorney's Office in real time, and I will address this evidence in detail below.
- The Respondent's Appeal - The respondent argued that the compensation awarded in his favor was on the significantly lower side, mainly the amount of compensation awarded on top of the damage of past and future loss of earnings and expenses. The respondent complained that the trial court ignored his request to impose punitive damages on the state, as it should have ruled, in light of its rulings regarding the conduct of the investigators and the State Attorney's Office.
Discussion and Decision
The Relationship between the Tort Claim and the Request for Compensation under Section 80 of the Penal Law
- We are dealing with an exceptional case. Respondent's request for compensation under Section 80(a) The Penal Law was rejected by the Tel Aviv District Court, in a comprehensive and in-depth ruling, after examining the material that stood before the courts in the arrest proceedings. On the other hand, the respondent's tort claim against the police and the State Attorney's Office was accepted.
Section 80(a) The Penal Law provides as follows:
- Defense Expenses from the State Treasury
(a) A trial that was opened without a complaint and the court saw that there was no basis for the accusation, or that it saw other circumstances justifying it, may order that the State Treasury pay the defendant his defense expenses and compensation for his arrest or imprisonment due to the charge from which he was acquitted or because of an indictment that was dismissed under section 94(b) of the Criminal Procedure Law [Consolidated Version], 5745-1982 in an amount that the court deems appropriate;..."