"This ground of 'circumstances... Those who justify indemnification and compensation, the cause of action is without limits and limitations. It has neither body nor body image, and it draws power and strength directly from the fountain of justice. Justice is what is supposed to instruct the court, of course, with the understanding that the acquittal of a defendant wherever he is is not sufficient to entitle him to compensation. A key concept for our matter is the concept of injustice.
[...]
And as it has been held, the expression 'other circumstances that justify this' is vague – it is vague and it should remain vague (The Reich Case, at pp. 496-498, by Justice Zamir); The discretion of the court, the discretion of the retiree. himself over spaces, and he will decide on the issue of compensation and indemnity."
(For additional rulings, see Omer Dekel, "Is the Entitled to Compensation? on the right of a defendant to receive compensation for his damages" Alei Mishpat 9 523, 528, note 14 (2011) (hereinafter: Dekel)).
- The "other circumstances" ground enshrined in the section therefore gives the court broad discretion when it comes to awarding compensation under Section 80(a) For reasons of justice. Among the circumstances that fall under this ground, the court may also take into account circumstances concerning the nature of the investigation proceedings and the trial in general, in which the question of whether the state was negligent or acted improperly in the investigation, prosecution or conduct of the trial will be examined (Matter Honey, at p. 118. And see more at Dekel, at pp. 528-529). Under the pretext of "other circumstances", it is not necessary to prove the elements of the tort of negligence in order to obtain compensation, thus creating a "complex" of circumstances for which a defendant can find a remedy under Section 80(a), without being able to do so by filing a tort claim. Thus, in the present case, we pointed to flaws in the conduct of the investigators, which were not sufficient to establish a claim for damages due to the lack of a causal connection, but they are consistent with one of the reasons underlying the State's obligation to Section 80(a) and the need to supervise the discretion of the Public Prosecution ( Honey, at p. 101).
- In my opinion, in view of the deficiencies that occurred in the conduct of the police (and we discussed their main points above), there are indeed those "other circumstances" that justified the respondent's compensation according to Section 80(a) They are: the misleading details provided by the police to the courts during the stages of the respondent's arrest; threats and violence against the respondent; The use of subterfuge is prohibited.
The problem is that we cannot award compensation for those "other circumstances" in the framework of the This procedureAfter all, we are not sitting as a court of appeal against the District Court's decision under Section 80(a)and when the respondent's appeal against the said decision was rejected, the respondent's path in this route was blocked.