The Second Head In the respondent's lawsuit, he revolved around the non-pecuniary damage in the form of mental anguish and pain and suffering, which he claimed, due to the The Conduct and Conduct of the Police, who he claims beat and humiliated him by forcing him to masturbate in front of interrogators.
In contrast to the first one, in this cluster of arguments, the relationship between the respondent-victim and the police-tortfeasor investigators is direct and unmediated, and is entirely based on the respondent's factual version versus the policemen's version. Therefore, when we come to discuss these arguments, we will take into account the rule that there is no way for an appellate court to intervene in findings of fact and reliability, except where the trial court ignored significant evidence or when there is a manifest error on the face of it.
Let us begin with the first instance of the respondent's claim, according to which it was the state's negligence that led to his detention for 88 days.
The Investigation and Arrest Procedures - Is It Negligence or Malice That Led to the False Arrest?
- The judgment of the trial court leaves the reader furious in the face of what was predicted to be negligent conduct, perhaps even malicious and tendentious conduct, on the part of the police and the State Attorney's Office, based on an overzealous eagerness to "catch" the blame on the respondent. I will not deny that reading the judgment, this was even my preliminary opinion. However, upon examination of the matter on its merits, it seems that the judgment on the question before us is fundamentally deficient in that it focuses on the evidentiary "nothing", while ignoring the entire corpus of evidence that was available to the police, the prosecution and the courts in real time in the framework of the arrest proceedings. In the judgment, there is also no real discussion of the question of the causal connection between the courts' decisions and the flawed and even false evidence presented to the court by the investigators. I will preface by saying that an examination of the matter in this perspective leads to a different result than that reached by the trial court.
- And this will be the way we walk. I will first discuss the first case. In the first part I will discuss the various stages of detention and explain to the reader the entirety of the evidence that was before the courts in real time, while examining the causal connection, i.e., whether the courts' decisions stemmed from the state's negligence in the manner in which the matter was presented to the courts. In the second part I will examine whether the police and the prosecution should be attributed to the failure of the investigation as determined in the judgment of the trial court, and whether the respondent's detention was extended as a result.
Let us begin by describing the state of affairs leading up to the respondent's arrest.