The proceeding according to Section 80(a) The Penal Law is an appendix to the main criminal proceeding. The hearing is conducted in a shortened hearing format to clarify the question of a defendant's entitlement to compensation for his arrest and indemnification for his defense expenses. We noted that the determinations made in the framework of it do not establish a estoppel in relation to other proceedings, so that the plaintiff has the way open to claim the remainder of his damages by way of filing a civil action (Matter Hagai Yosef, paragraph 96 of the judgment; Civil Appeal Authority 4528/06 Burns v. Superintendent (Ret.) Shaul Marcus (unpublished, May 18, 2009, paragraphs 30-31 of the decision)).
- As a rule, it is reasonable to assume that the scope of a negligence claim Plaza From that of Section 80(a) according to the Penal Law, and to the extent that a plaintiff is able to prove his tort claim, it can be assumed that he has come out with all his lust in his hands, and there will be no point in conducting a proceeding under Section 80(a) to the Penal Law. This is in light of the fact that the subordinate legislature has greatly limited the amount of compensation according to Section 80(a) In the Rules of Procedure (Compensation for Arrest or Imprisonment), 5742-1982. Regulations (which also apply to compensation under Section 38 The Detentions Law) sets a ceiling for maximum compensation based on the loss of a day's earnings according to the average wage in the economy, compensation that does not include non-pecuniary damage such as grief, shame, and the feeling of helplessness involved in false arrest or imprisonment. Therefore, it is easy to understand the decision of this Court to dismiss the Respondent's appeal against the District Court's decision according to Section 80(a), and leave the work of clarification to the trial court, which will hear his civil claim.
On the other hand, from a different perspective, the Section 80(a) to the Penal Law Plaza than that of a tort claim. This is both because the claimant is not required to prove the fault of the authority, nor is he required to prove damage according to the standards and rules that are customary in a tort claim in a civil proceeding, and in view of the second cause of action set forth in section ("or saw other circumstances that justified it") which authorizes the court to award compensation. The language of the law is vague and leaves the court with fairly broad discretion (Criminal Appeal 7826/96 Reich v. State of Israel, IsrSC 51(1) 481, 496-497 (1997)). This was noted by theJustice Cheshin in the case Honey, which based the force of the cause of action on the principles of justice (ibid., p. 91):