On June 3, 2010, the District Court's judgment was rendered. It was held that the police had not been able to formulate a fabric of prima facie evidence according to which the respondent had indeed committed the acts attributed to him. The evidence that the police managed to obtain "was nothing but zero at best, and fabrication of evidence at worst." It was determined that the respondent was "marked" by the police from the moment of his arrest, and from that moment on, the police acted in improper ways in order to justify the continuation of the proceedings against the respondent. It was determined, based on the opinion of the expert on behalf of the court, that due to the series of events that the respondent went through, he suffered a permanent disability of 10%.
In light of these findings, the court awarded the respondent compensation for non-pecuniary damage – pain and suffering, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life – in the sum of NIS 1.1 million, as well as compensation for loss of earning capacity in the amount of NIS 400,000. In addition, the respondent was awarded NIS 50,000 for assisting family members during and after the detention, as well as NIS 240,256 for expenses (stay under house arrest, psychological treatment, and reenactment of the incident). In total, the respondent was awarded compensation in the amount of NIS 1,790,256, plus attorney's fees at the rate of 20% and fees and transcription expenses. Hence the appeal before us.
The arguments of the parties in this court
- The appellant argues in its summaries that the trial court ignored the judicial decisions to extend the respondent's detention that were given "in real time", and also ignored the fact that the respondent's request for compensation under section 80(a) of the Law was rejected. The appellant clarifies that even if there were flaws in the conduct of the police, the respondent had accumulated a great deal of prima facie evidence at the time, and it was their cumulative weight that led to the courts' decision to extend the respondent's detention again and again. Therefore, there is no causal connection between the conduct of the police – to the extent that there was a flaw in it, and the respondent's arrest and the damage caused to him as a result of this arrest – to the extent that it was caused to him.
The Respondent, for its part, argues that the State is appealing against factual findings and findings of reliability in which there is no way for an appellate court to intervene. The respondent also argues that the decisions to extend his detention were made on the basis of a partially false representation, and points to many inaccuracies in the memoranda and confidential reports that were presented to the courts in the hearings regarding the extension of his detention. The respondent also claims that the state was negligent and did not exhaust all possible directions of the investigation. In this context, the respondent focuses on two omissions: one – the failure to capture his personal diary (which could have helped him remember what he did on the day of the rape), and the second – the failure to perceive the call outputs of his telephone and cellular device (which could have substantiated the alibi he presented). It should be noted that the respondent also filed a counter-appeal, directed against the amount of compensation awarded to him.