Hence, the defendant who is acquitted, or the indictment against him has been dismissed, has the opportunity to clarify his entire claims in a separate civil action.
- However, and even before we approach the merits of the matter, it appears that in the circumstances of the case before us, this result – in which the respondent's request for compensation under Section 80(a) The Penal Law was rejected while his tort claim was accepted – there is an anomaly in it. The First Cause In section 80(a) Concerning "There was no basis for guilt"overlaps to some extent with a civil lawsuit that relies on the tort of negligence, despite the differences between the two arrangements, and as stated in the case law "Its spirit is like the spirit of the tort of negligence in torts" (Criminal Appeal 4466/98 Dabash v. State of Israel, IsrSC 56(3) 73, 90 (2002) (hereinafter: Honey Matter)). If the prosecution and the police acted reasonably, no compensation will be awarded on the grounds of "there was no basis for guilt." The examination of reasonableness for the purpose of the tort of negligence is similar, if not identical, to the reasonableness for the purpose of the cause of action of "there was no basis for fault" in the framework of the Section 80(a) (Compare Civil Appeal 3580/06 Estate of the late Hagai Yosef z"l v. State of Israel (unpublished, March 21, 2011) in section 99 (hereinafter: The Hagai Yosef Matter)).
The same is true in the case before us. In a proceeding according to Section 80(a) In a detailed and reasoned decision spanning 38 pages, the District Court examined the evidence before the courts in the arrest proceedings, and concluded that it was not possible to determine that "there was no basis for guilt." On the face of it, it is difficult to reconcile this conclusion with the conclusion of the trial court in our case, according to which "the evidence and the pieces of evidence were nothing but zero at best..." (pp. 22-23 of the judgment).
It is clear that if the court finds in the proceeding according to Section 80(a) Because the police and the prosecution acted reasonably, and in the tort claim there is a different factual basis, it is clear that there is no impediment to reaching a different conclusion in the framework of the tort claim. As we shall see below, this is not the case before us.