Respondent's appeal against the decision according to Section 80(a) The Penal Law was discussed before his civil claim was clarified in the trial court, and against this background, this court rejected his appeal in a short judgment, in the following words:
"It turned out to us that the appellant filed a claim for damages against the State in respect of the affair that is the subject of the present appeal. There is no reason to allow two parallel proceedings to proceed, especially since the proceeding before us is a trivial proceeding to the criminal proceeding. Moreover, the criminal proceedings that were opened against the appellant ended with the cancellation of the indictment. The trial court did not render a ruling. Therefore, there is no sufficient evidentiary basis before us. The matter in this appeal will be clarified in its entirety and as a precedent within the scope of the civil case" (Criminal Appeal 11372/05 Shubar v. State of Israel (unpublished, May 10, 2007).
Thus, the respondent's appeal against the decision to reject his application according to Section 80(a) The Penal Law was rejected without clarifying its merits, on the assumption that in any case the issues would be fully clarified within the scope of the tort claim. However, since we have reached the conclusion that the vast majority of the respondent's claim is to be dismissed, there is no appropriate venue to award compensation to the respondent for the flaws in the conduct of the police (as opposed to compensation for the violence that was used against him during the interrogation). In the normal state of affairs, and if we had turned the wheel backwards, in view of the findings that we reached in the framework of the tort claim here, there would have been room to award compensation to the respondent according to the second alternative In section 80(a) of the Penal Law, and we will reiterate the language of the section before our eyes:
- Defense Expenses from the State Treasury
(a) A trial that was opened without a complaint and the court deemed 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;