Allow the payment of compensation inthese cases, when the court is the arbiter of the entitlement to compensation.
The court will also be empowered to compel a complainant to pay compensation, in an amount to be determined, to the person who was arrested and released, if it finds that the complaint that caused the arrest was filed recklessly, either for the sake of a joke or without any basis. The complainant will be given a reasonable opportunity to argue his arguments in this matter.
The Minister of Justice will be empowered to enact regulations regarding compensation and, inter alia, to determine the procedures for the application – whether before the application is submitted to the court or before the court – as well as to determine maximum amounts for compensation.
Although the considerations regarding compensation or payment of expenses for pre-trial detention are not necessarily identical to considerations regarding compensation or payment of expenses after acquittal or cancellation of an indictment, nevertheless – and given our opinion on the identical formulas regarding compensation or payment of expenses – it would not be appropriate to interpret the provision of section 80 and determine the areas for retirement.a. The discretion of the court without scrutinizing the provisions of section 38 of the Arrests Law; that if we do not do so, others will do so.
In addition, we will add that the Compensation Regulations – which are regulations that determine on the subject of indemnification and compensation under section 80 of the Penal Law (see paragraph 13, above) – the same regulations themselves also determine on the subject of indemnification and compensation under section 38 of the Arrests Law.
Provision of Section 80 of the Halacha
- How to Interpret Article 80 To the Penal Law in Halacha? In this regard, a distinction must be made between the two grounds that make up a provision-This law; The grounds that "there was no basis for the accusation" and the ground concerning "other circumstances justifying it".
"There was no basis for the accusation"
- Until we reach the conclusion that there was no basis for the accusation, it is not enough for us to see that a defendant has been acquitted of his trial. The acquittal of a defendant is a prerequisite and a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient condition. Assessing it on a house-The sentence is to continue to examine the evidence that would have been transferred to the filing of a reporter-The home indictment-The law, that only in this way can reach a conclusion if there was or was not
There was a basis for accusing a certain person of criminal law. Thus, for example, it can be said that there was no basis for an accusation where the act does not amount to an offense at all, or where – and it is common – that there is no proper evidence base. See, for example: Criminal Appeal 1524/93 Michaelashvili v. State of Israel (Michaelashvili [2]), at pp. 654-655; Criminal Appeal 3583/94 to Eden v. State of Israel [3], at p. 796. It is necessary to examine objectively "if the investigative material that was before the prosecution prior to the filing of the indictment would have given the prosecutor a reasonable expectation that there is prima facie evidence to substantiate the conviction": The Yosef and Pimp case [1], at pp. 519-520, and the references therein; We should know that there was no basis for the accusation where "no reasonable jurist would have thought that there was room to bring an indictment against him [against the defendant – M. H]": Criminal Appeal 269/55 The Attorney General v. David (The Yaakov David Case [4]), at p. 1825. This is the case when "the Public Prosecution did not have the power to prove, from the outset, with reasonable certainty" key details of the indictment (Criminal Appeal 420/63 Bergman (Bartal) v. Attorney General (Bergman (Bartal) [5]), at p. It was further stated that there is room to examine, after the fact, whether the acquittal was foreseeable: CA 310/84 Bareli v. State of Israel (Bareli Case [6]), at p. 504; Criminal Appeal 425/88 Badir v. State of Israel (Badir Case [7]), at p. 207.
- Detectives in an attempt to find a common denominator for all these formulations will lead us to the test of reasonableness of the elderly, the same test to which we have long been accustomed in all branches of law, or, if we are careful to say, for the most part; "Reasonableness" or lack of "fault" on the part of the prosecution in filing a reporter-The home indictment-Trial (see Criminal Appeal 7826/96 Reich N. State of Israel (Parashat Reich [8]), p. 487, from my mouth Justice A. Goldberg). What this means is this: where the prosecution acted reasonably and with proper care, as befits the claim, it is not.He said that there was no basis for the accusation, even if a defendant was acquitted on the evening of the day. Instead of N.He said – subject to the second reason – that the damage and sorrow will rest in their place, and in the language of the borrowed from another place it is stated: The loss lies where it falls. However, if the prosecution acted unreasonably and with improper care, the state will bear the defendant's expenses and will be forced to compensate him for his arrest and imprisonment.
Like any administrative body, the prosecution must act with reasonableness and good faith, and the criterion of reasonableness balances the considerations that appeal to the parties. The prosecution must meet a test of reasonableness – a test of reasonableness that is unique to it (e.g., High Court of Justice 935/89 Ganor v. Attorney General [9]) – and failure to meet that test of reasonableness may require conclusions regarding indemnification and compensation of the defendant for damages he suffered. From a general conceptual point of view, the grounds for the lack of a basis for accusation as the justification for obligating the state to benefit the damages of a defendant who was acquitted can be seen as an extension and derivative of tort law and of the obligation that we owe to "our neighbors". Compare the appeal of the Israel Bar Association