In light of all this, the expert determined that the respondent's psychiatric disability was 20% for a period of three years from the date of his arrest, and at a rate of 10% permanently.
And finally, the judgment of the trial court does not focus on detention alone:
"[The respondent] was for many days in a state of utter helplessness in view of the improper conduct of the investigating police officers, which was expressed in the fabrication of evidence and the provision of false information to the courts, an attempt to 'convince' minors... To testify that [the respondent] committed indecent acts against them, and severe and unjustified omissions in carrying out a vote-identification lineup, and so on, as described at length in this judgment. The conduct of the police caused a very severe violation of [the respondent's] right to freedom and dignity, and imposed an indelible social stain on him... There is something in my heart against the labeling [of the respondent] as a rapist, and taking all possible actions in order to bring about his conviction."
Thus, the respondent claimed that he had suffered emotional damage as a result of the interrogators' conduct. This argument was based, inter alia, on an expert opinion on behalf of the respondent, which was backed up by an expert opinion on behalf of the court. In view of this, it is necessary to conclude that it was the entirety of the interrogators' conduct that caused the respondent the alleged emotional damage. Beyond the fact that this conclusion is based on factual findings, the appellant did not dispute the non-pecuniary damage and did not question the experts.
Summary
- A man was arrested on suspicion of committing an offense. His detention has been extended several times, and an indictment has even been filed against him. After a while, the man was released from detention. Subsequently, the indictment was even dismissed. He is now interested in suing the state for damages. The law allows him to choose between two tracks: a claim by virtue of section 80 of the Penal Law, or a negligence claim by virtue of the Torts Ordinance. Each track has a relative advantage and disadvantage, compared to the other. The burden of proof is lighter in the first track: inter alia, the plaintiff is not required to prove the extent of the damage caused to him or the existence of a causal connection between the police negligence and the damage. It is possible to rule according to section 80 even if "other circumstances" – which are not necessarily the absence of a basis for guilt – justify it. At the same time, the amount of compensation to which the plaintiff may be entitled is greater in the second track: compensation under section 80 has a maximum ceiling, according to the number of days of detention and the scope of legal defense expenses. Compensation by virtue of the Torts Ordinance, on the other hand, may reach much larger sums. This, of course, is subject to the amount of damage that will be proven before the court and in accordance with additional considerations.
The choice between the two tracks is in the hands of the plaintiff. right to choose the track of action according to Article 80, based on the small burden of proof that rests on him, and with a willingness to "absorb" the possibility that he will receive compensation on a limited scale. Alternatively, he has the right to choose the route of an action by virtue of The Torts Ordinance, in the hope of winning higher sums. However, in this case, he must remember that the burden of proof is heavier. He must prove – as in any negligence claim – that all the elements of the tort were met: a conceptual and concrete duty of care, negligence, a causal connection and damage. Only if he convinces the court, with the required balance of probabilities, will he be awarded compensation.