The court awarded the respondent NIS 690,256 for loss of past and future earnings, third-party assistance, and past and future expenses. In addition, the respondent was awarded compensation for pain and suffering, mental anguish and loss of life in the sum of NIS 1.1 million, so that in the end, the respondent was awarded compensation in the amount of NIS 1,790,525, plus attorney's fees at the rate of 20% together with the A.A.M., as well as expenses (expert fees according to receipts, fees and transcription expenses).
- This judgment is the subject of the appeal before us. Simultaneously with the filing of the appeal, the state filed a motion to delay the execution of the judgment. The request was granted in part, and in his decision of August 15, 2010, the Honorable Justice Grunis ordered a stay of payment of half of the amount awarded (NIS 900,000) and that the fees awarded would be paid in full, subject to the undertaking of the respondent's counsel that they would return it in full or in part, according to the results of the appeal.
We will also tell the reader that about two months after the judgment of the trial court, the respondent filed a "request for reconsideration" with the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court (Serious Crimes Case 5155-99) regarding the court's decision to reject his request for a award of damages under Section 80(a) to the Penal Law (as may be recalled, the respondent's appeal to the Supreme Court and his request for an additional hearing were rejected). In its decision of September 13, 2010, the court (the Honorable Vice President A. Mudrik) rejected the request, for three reasons: procedural impediment – in the absence of legal anchoring for a procedural proceeding of "reconsideration" of a decision under Article 80; A conceptual error in the respondent's request, which revolved around his right to a fair trial – when the purpose of a proceeding under Article 80 It is a "civil" purpose of compensation or indemnification, and is not intended to determine whether the indictment was based on actual grounds, and in any case is not intended to "restore his dignity"; and procedural duplication – since the issue of compensation will be discussed in any case in the judgment that will be given in the appeal here against the judgment of the District Court in the tort claim.