It can be agreed that ideally the police should examine in detail what is in the investigation file, and trace all the leads in the file. However, naturally, such a deep investigation by the authorities is not realistic in every case
And the way in which the investigation is conducted in practice is the result of budgetary constraints, manpower, and the nature of the tasks assigned to the investigators at the various stations.
The state agrees that developments that followed the filing of the indictment weakened the power of the incriminating evidence, but it argues that nothing could have affected the reasonableness of the decision to file an indictment.
As to the second ground for awarding compensation and indemnity – grounds based on "other circumstances" – the state argues that there was no malice in the prosecution and that the appellant was not caused a miscarriage of justice. The state was not negligent in examining the alibi claim – a claim that was raised belatedly, and to its extent – and this claim was not necessarily proven to be a correct claim. Moreover, in the circumstances of the case – and according to the court's own decision – it is clear that the appellant's acquittal was an acquittal due to doubt. As to its considerations in retracting the indictment, the state's argument was that these came due to the accumulation of "difficulties" both in the alibi issue and in the matter of the pregnancy test. Indeed, the state argues, everything that happened during the conduct of the trial stemmed from unforeseen developments. The state admits that there were mistakes during the investigation, and that there were matters that were not examined, even though they should have been examined. However, she argues, these do not entitle the appellant to compensation and indemnity, since the evidence that existed at that time before the claim justified the continuation of the proceedings.
As to the complainant's obligation to pay the appellant's expenses
- When a defendant is acquitted, this is what he instructs us Section 81(a) according to the Penal Law, a house may-A trial to obligate a complainant to pay the defendant's defense expenses and the costs of the prosecution, as he shall determine, if he is found to be "... Because the complaint that caused the trial was filed lightly or for the sake of taunting or without foundation..." Adds Section 81(a) and states that the house-A trial shall not obligate a complainant as aforesaid, but "... after giving him a reasonable opportunity to argue his arguments in this matter..." The appellant seeks to obligate the complainant to indemnify and compensate as instructed-This law. The state opposes all-The application is valid on the grounds, inter alia, that charging the complainant with expenses will discourage victims of sexual offenses. Even so, a woman is hesitant until she files a complaint regarding a sexual offense committed with her body, and the fear that she will be charged with expenses may seriously harm her filing complaints with the police. See and compare Parashat Anonymous [22], p. 714.
This argument for the state is understandable, although it is appropriate to single out and isolate those cases in which it is clearly proven that this was a libel that led a woman to file a false complaint against the defendant.