Finally, the court noted that the respondent's request suffered from a considerable delay, since it was filed about four years from the date of the cancellation of the indictment, a delay for which no real justification was found. Against the background of the aforesaid, the respondent's request for compensation according to Section 80(a) The Penal Law was postponed.
- The Respondent filed an appeal to this Court against the District Court's decision to dismiss his application under the Section 80(a) to the Penal Law. However, between me and me, in February 2006, before a hearing was held on his appeal and a little more than six years after the cancellation of the indictment, the respondent filed a claim for damages against the State, which is the claim that is the subject of the appeal before us. Against the background of the aforesaid, this Court rejected the Respondent's appeal, ruling that there is no reason to conduct two parallel proceedings, and in view of the fact that the matter in the appeal will be fully clarified within the framework of the civil case (Criminal Appeal 11372/05 Shober v. State of Israel (Unpublished, May 10, 2007)). The respondent's request to hold an additional hearing was also denied (Additional Criminal Hearing 5328/07 Shober v. State of Israel (unpublished, September 2, 2007)).
From here the arena moved to the tort claim filed by the respondent, the subject of the appeals before us.
Main Points of the Trial Court's Judgment
- After reviewing the normative framework of the tort of negligence, the trial court defined the parameters in light of which the respondent's claim should be examined as follows:
- The conduct of the police and the State Attorney's Office during the investigation and vis-à-vis the courts.
- Examination of the question of the plaintiff's arrest, and the duration of the detention.
At this point, the court preceded and ruled that it should be concluded that the question of the damage and the causal connection are not in dispute between the parties, since the plaintiff was not questioned about them. From here, the trial court proceeded to discuss the merits of the respondent's claims that the police and the State Attorney's Office acted negligently and deliberately, and I will summarize the following: