Criminal Appeal 4466/98
Rami Dabash
Against
- The State of Israel
- Anonymous
In the Supreme Court sitting as a Court of Criminal Appeals
[22.1.2002]
Before President A. Barak and Justices T. Or, A. Matza, M. Cheshin, D. Dorner,
D. Beinisch, A. Rivlin
Appeal against the decision of the Jerusalem District Court (Vice President Y. Zemach and Justices M. Naor, M. Arad) of June 9, 1998 in criminal case 533/97. The appeal regarding the state’s obligation to pay compensation and indemnification was accepted by a majority of opinions against the dissenting opinion of Justice E. Rivlin.
Reuven Bar Haim – on behalf of the appellant;
Tamar Bornstein, Senior Deputy to the State Attorney – on behalf of the respondents.
Judgment
Judge M. Cheshin
When he was acquitted of a rape charge, the appellant asked the court to obligate the state and the complainant against him to pay him his defense expenses and to compensate him for the days he spent in detention and the days he was confined to his home. The trial court denied the motion, and on this the appeal before us. In the past, different opinions were heard on this issue of payment of defense expenses and compensation for arrest and imprisonment after the acquittal of a defendant, and therefore we decided to expand the panel and requested that the parties' counsel put their arguments in writing. We asked and were answered.
Outlines in the Sequence of Events in the Court
- The appellant was tried before the-Jerusalem District Court on the charge of rape under aggravated circumstances, an offense as defined In section 345(a)(1) and in section 345(b)(3) of the Penal Law, 5737-1977 (Penal Law or The Law). Written-The indictment stated that the appellant had married the complainant without her consent and using force, and the aggravating circumstances were that the complainant became pregnant as a result of that act of rape. Reporter-This indictment was filed while the appellant was in detention.
Upon the filing of the indictment, and at the request of the State, the court ordered the appellant's detention until the end of the proceedings. However, after about five weeks, and following additional evidence collected in the police file, the court further decided to release the appellant from detention under conditions of "house arrest". As appears from the documents before us, the appellant was in detention for a total of seventy days.
- The appellant's trial sounded orderly, and after the conclusion of the prosecution and the defense case, the state notified the-The trial that she decided to retract her letter-The indictment. In the words of the notice of May 21, 1998:
After a recent re-examination and evaluation of the totality of the evidence brought before the court, as well as following further inquiries and examinations conducted by the accuser to date, the accuser has reached the conclusion that in this case it will not be possible to rely on the incriminating material in the evidence to a sufficient extent to establish a conviction in a criminal trial against the defendant.