The State's appeal should be dismissed insofar as it relates to the conclusion of the trial court that violence and threats were used against the respondent during his interrogation. As a result, the respondent is entitled to compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of NIS 200,000 together with attorney's fees in the amount of NIS 45,000.
In addition, we recommend that the state compensate the respondent in the maximum amount prescribed in the Rules of Procedure (Compensation for Arrest or Imprisonment), 5742-1982, for 88 days of detention.
Each party will bear its own expenses.
Note: A gag order is hereby issued for any identifying details about the minor-complainant and a complete prohibition on the publication of the exhibits file.
Notes to Justice Hendel's Judgment
- Having been placed before me the detailed and reasoned opinion of my colleague Justice Hendel, I will briefly address a number of points that arise from what is stated therein.
- between the respondent's request for compensation under Article 80 The Penal Law and its Tort Claim - My colleague found to note that "the fact that the District Court rejected the request for compensation under Article 80 Law The Penalties - It alone does not lead to the dismissal of the appeal" (paragraph 6 of his opinion). There is no dispute about this, and I discussed this at length in paragraph 19 of my judgment (see also paragraphs 107-109). However, and without derogating from the force of the rule Joseph, I expressed my opinion that in the present case, it is difficult to reconcile the comprehensive and reasoned judgment of the District Court in the Telta Circuit, which rejected the Respondent's claim in the proceeding under בית המשפטArticle 80, and the conclusion of the Kama in our case, according to which בית משפט"The evidence, and the pieces of evidence, were nothing but zero zeros at best..." As I have noted, this result is, in my view, "of the anomaly."
- Call outputs - My colleague raises a number of questions, which, in his view, if the police had been in advance to investigate and seize the necessary material, would have significantly shortened the respondent's detention. According to him, the discovery of the output at a later stage paved the way for the respondent's release, and "the impression is that if the police had acted properly, and had acted earlier to clarify these questions and seize the necessary material, the respondent's detention would have been significantly shortened" (paragraph 10 of his opinion).
In my opinion, and I discussed the matter in my judgment, "in retrospect it can be said that the picture that emerges from the outcome of the conversations is consistent with the respondent's final version, according to which he was at the camper's home from about 17:30" (paragraph 90, supra). And to be precise: In retrospect This is consistent with his version The Final of the respondent. zero, and as my colleague emphasized, "the rule is that the issue of negligence is examined 'in real time', as of the date of the negligence, and not according to the information received afterwards" (paragraph 11 of his opinion).