Summary of the dispute between me and my friends
- My colleague is of the opinion that the respondent's appeal should be dismissed in full, the state's appeal should be accepted in part, and the respondent should be awarded compensation in the amount of NIS 200,000 plus expenses in the amount of NIS 45,000. My colleague reaches this conclusion by distinguishing between two main sources of damage: one – the prolongation of the detention proceedings as a result of the negligence of the police, and the other – non-pecuniary damage caused to the respondent as a result of the conduct of the police.
As for the head of the first damage, my colleague is of the opinion that the state's negligence did not lead to the respondent's detention for days and his detention until the end of the proceedings. In this context, my colleague refers to the two components of the alleged negligence: The first - Presentation of false or false information to the courts, and the second - Failure to present relevant information to the courts. As for the erroneous or false information, my colleague analyzes separately each stage of the respondent's detention: the first, second and third extension of detention, and the detention until the end of the proceedings. According to him, even if at each and every stage the police presented the court with erroneous or false information, at each and every stage the court had before it a whole body of prima facie evidence, detached from the erroneous and false information, which in itself was sufficient to make the decision regarding the respondent's continued detention. As to the relevant information that was not presented to the court, my colleague is of the opinion that the two alleged omissions (the diary and the call emissaries) do not amount to negligence, and in any event, their resolution would not have prevented the extension of the respondent's detention. Therefore, in summary, my colleague's opinion is that there is no causal connection between the state's negligence and the prolongation of the respondent's detention.