With regard to proving the facts detailed in the indictments filed against the appellants, the trial court held that: "The prosecution succeeded in proving the charges beyond a reasonable doubt", since the accuser's evidence was not denied, the appellants did not bother to testify in their defense and did not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, who testified that the meat seized was pork, and therefore the judge's determination of law is fundamental.
- The Appeal
Counsel for the appellants disagrees that the respondent has fulfilled the burden of proof imposed on it that each of the appellants sold meat that was proven to be pork. This argument should not be accepted because it contradicts a factual determination of the court.
The appellants' appeal relates first and foremost to the fact that the bylaw is null and void in essence since it violates the appellants' freedom of occupation.
The defense attorney further argues that the "opposition to the pig" is not among the national values of the people of Israel, and that the court erred in believing that there was a very broad consensus on this matter, and in defining the opposition to the pig as part of the national tradition with special symbolic value, regardless of religion.
Counsel for the appellants further argued in the statement of appeal that "the tradition of eating pork by Jews in Israel has existed for many years and at various levels... The kibbutz movement is characterized by a liberal (if not encouraging) attitude toward the pig... Its members have been raising pigs (Kibbutz Lahav) for many years and producing foods from their flesh (Kibbutz Mizra)."
In this regard, counsel for the appellants again erred when he claimed in the statement of appeal "facts" that were not proven at all before the court, and therefore the claim should be dismissed out of hand, since it is not appropriate to bring before the appellate court facts that were not lawfully proven by the appellants in the previous instance. The "facts" regarding the attitude of the kibbutz movement to eating pork, as well as regarding the production and cultivation of pigs, are not well-known facts that do not require evidence, and the court has no judicial knowledge of them.