I agree that circumstances external to the criminal proceeding – such as the difficult personal circumstances of the innocent defendant – may affect the award of indemnity and compensation. In this regard, see the words of Justice Turkel in the Yosef and Pimp case [1], at pp. 528-5, 27. At the same time, I will not agree that there is justice
to reduce those "other circumstances" but to circumstances external to the criminal proceeding itself. We will add to this question and address it further below.
In any event, it seems that no one will dispute that the defendant's personal considerations are considerations that are relevant at the time of the hearing of his request for indemnification and compensation. However, the main thing is in the circumstances of the criminal proceeding itself, to which we will now turn to them.
- As for the "circumstances" derived from the criminal proceeding itself, the provision must be distinguished and distinguished by the Section 80(a) between the first and the second ground. The first ground, as we have seen, was set within its boundaries in a closed formula – the formula according to which "there was no basis for accusation" – and even within the boundaries of this formula the power of the house-The law with it to interpret and determine the areas of separation.5, the space for movement is limited from the beginning. Unlike this ground, it is the cause of "other circumstances that justify it", which is a cause of action-A framework is and may be retired. Power on-Surface Spaces-Up to-Horizon. Since this is a narrow in its boundaries and it is broad in its boundaries, it seems to us that it would not be correct to interpret the second cause as a cause made of the same material that made the first ground. The first cause was built of rigid and hard materials, while the second cause was built of soft and flexible materials. Interpretation: The circumstances justifying indemnification and compensation will be broad in their scope from the circumstances of the first cause. The circumstances of the second cause of action will not necessarily be circumstances in the family of circumstances of "there was no foundation", and they may be softer and more flexible circumstances. See also above, paragraph 12.
- This flexibility of circumstances in the matter of compensation on the second ground will not always speak in favor of the innocent defendant; Sometimes the circumstances will speak in favor of the defendant – lest we say: the duty of the state – and sometimes it will speak specifically of his duty. Criminal law, like civil law, operates in a binary method and by way of swinging: one wins, the other loses, who's above and who's down. This method has its advantages, and with it come the disadvantages. The system of granting indemnity and compensation to the defendant is not built in his image in the image of the substantive criminal law. Within the boundaries of the indemnity and compensation system, a home can-the law to reach interim solutions; It has nothing to do with the solution of everything-or-Anonymous-Nothing and can come up with solutions that are not found-There on the way between one end and another. Thus, for example, the same flexibility in assessing the "justifiable" circumstances can bring the-The trial for partial indemnity and compensation rulings only. Indeed, the Section 80(a) to the Penal Law of Permitting a House-A law to oblige the State Treasury to pay the defendant who was acquitted of his sentence compensation and indemnification "in an amount that will appear to be a house
law", and the provision of section 80(b) further authorizes the Minister of Justice to determine "... Maximum amounts for expenses and compensation..."; The concept of maximum, whatever it is, will teach us that although a roof will be set for indemnification and compensation, it is not necessary that we sit on the roof.
- With regard to the circumstances related to the proceeding itself, and given our consideration of the principle that we should do our best not to turn a matter of fact into a matter (see above, paragraph 49), it seems that it is appropriate to-The trial will hedge over my husband-The law – in principle – applies to the evidence submitted to the house-The trial, whether in the trial proceedings or in the pre-trial proceedings-Trial. It is possible, of course, that in these and other appropriate cases it is better for my husband to-The Law to Influence a Home-Trial documents and other information about those collected into home bags-The Trial. This is the case, for example, with regard to the damages that the defendant suffered as a result of the trial.
- Moreover, it seems to me that a rule should be established, according to which where a defendant is acquitted in the trial court, the main consideration is-The opinion whether they will be ruled and if they do not award compensation and indemnity – and if they do, what will be their rate – will be given to the court that hears, and the house-The law of appeal will not intervene in the decisions of the first instance except for arbitrary reasons. See and compare: Parashat Wahab [16], p. 804; Parashat Barali [6], p. 504; Parashat Ofri [19]. Indeed, a house-The trial at the hearing was the one who heard the witnesses and was impressed by their testimony; He analyzed the testimonies and decided which of the witnesses to believe and which not to believe, and at the end of the hearing he decided to acquit the defendant. After all this, it seems, it is appropriate to consider-His opinion at the time of a decision on the issue of compensation and indemnity will be entitled to immunity, if not immunity because-So for a heavy weight. If a house falls-A trial that is subject to a legal error – such as one that misinterpreted the law (cf. Yaakov David [4], p. 1825); that he did not bring a consideration of the matter; that he brought a consideration that was not relevant to the matter; which he gave to the consideration that the matter of excessive weight and greater weight than he should have – it is needless to say that a house-The sentence of the appeal will intervene and have its say. However, the living space that will be given to the house-A sentence that deserves, in our opinion, to have a great deal of space. This rule will also be derived, in part, from the principle that-We have inflated beyond the proper extent of this accompanying proceeding of indemnification and compensation rulings. Our friend said about this Justice Zamir In Parashat Joseph and a Pimp [1] (p. 528) also quoting from what he said in Parashat Reich [8] (p. 499):
... Considerations of justice can also, together with reasons of law, create "other circumstances" that justify the payment of expenses and compensation to the defendant under section 80(a) of the Penal Law... Doing justice requires weighing and balancing all the circumstances of the case... The task of weighing and balancing rests primarily with the court in the court.