"Other circumstances that justify it"
- More difficult to crack is the second ground for the state's obligation to pay compensation and indemnity, the ground of "other circumstances that justify it." This cause of action is younger than the previous one. It was born only in 1974, when it was found that the older cause of action – the reason that "there was no basis for the accusation" – was narrow in its scope, and that it was not sufficient to be of assistance to the defendants, who could have been charged in the first place, but due to other circumstances and reasons
There is justice to compensate and indemnify them. This ground of "circumstances... Those that justify indemnification and compensation, the cause of action is without limits and limitations. It has neither body nor body image, and it draws power and strength directly from the fountain of justice. Justice is what is supposed to instruct the court, of course, with the understanding that the acquittal of a defendant wherever he is is not sufficient to entitle him to compensation. A key concept for our matter is the concept of injustice. As stated elsewhere (The Tuviyahu case [13], at p. 303, by Acting President Justice Landau): "... Expenses may be imposed only as compensation for defense expenses or for an arrest or imprisonment that constitutes an injustice to the defendant..." and as it has been held, the expression "other circumstances justifying it" is vague – it is vague and it should remain vague (Reich [8], at pp. 496-498, by Justice Zamir); The discretion of the court, the discretion of the retiree. himself over spaces, and he will decide on the issue of compensation and indemnification. Cf. the case of Yosef and Pimp [1], at pp. 524, 528. And since the field should not be left open to all winds, the halakha tried its strength in formulating criteria that would guide the court in its application of this ground.
- The same applies to the improper activity of the investigative and prosecution authorities. For example: an island-Examination of the alibi claim. The suspect raised an alibi claim; The investigating authorities and the prosecution did not examine this claim, and at the end of the hearing it led to the acquittal of the defendant: Badir [7],
p. 208; Criminal Appeal 52/89 State of Israel N. Sabah (Parashat Sabah [15]), p. 659; Parashat Michaelashvili [2], p. 653. This is also the case in the (hypothetical) case in which the prosecution fabricates a libel.-Falsehood about the accused: Criminal Appeal 406/74 Vahav N. State of Israel (Parashat Wahab [16]), p. 804; Or in the (hypothetical) case in which the decision to prosecute was made maliciously or did not support itself for reasonable cause: Criminal Appeal 292/78 Gabay N. State of Israel (Parashat Gabay [17]), p. 43. The Rule also considered the question of whether the acquitted defendant suffered a miscarriage of justice or significant damage as a result of the proceeding; Thus, for example, where it has been proven that the defendant fell victim to the-Falsehood that misled the prosecution authorities: The Sabah [15], pp. 658-659. Thus, even when, as a result of the criminal proceeding, the defendant's family unit was damaged, he suffered financial damage or his health was harmed: Joseph and a Pimp [1], p. 527. An opinion was also expressed that where the defendant is acquitted of "absolute acquittal", there is room to indemnify and compensate him: Criminal Appeal Authority 960/99 Macmillan N. State of Israel (Parashat Macmillan [18]). - On the other hand, it was held that in certain circumstances it would not be justified to obligate the state with compensation and indemnification. Thus, for example, circumstances related to the defendant's behavior – whose behavior the defendant led to the raising of suspicions against him, the opening of an investigation or the filing of a report-Indictment against him: The Affair Gabay [17], p. 43, and Parashat Sabah [15], p660; Or, where the defendant's conduct during the interrogation and trial did not contribute to the investigation of the truth: Macmillan [18], p. 304
(by Justice Dorner); Criminal Appeal 6/86 Ofri v. State of Israel (Ofri Case [19]). This is also the case with circumstances related to the defendant's guilt, despite his acquittal. For example, where the defendant was acquitted but it was an acquittal of doubt or due to a technical difficulty in convicting him. In these circumstances, it was determined that despite the acquittal, it would not be justified to obligate the state with compensation and indemnity: Criminal Appeal 6509/97 Haddad v. State of Israel [20]; The Gabbay case [17], at p. 43. For all of these and more, see Kibbutz References in the case of Yosef and Pimp [1], at pp. 524-525.