Criminal Case (Jerusalem) 28759-05-15 State of Israel v. Eran Malka - part 115

Second, the permanent remedy Section 150 to the Grace of God in a situation in which a claim of protection from justice is accepted, is Cancellation The indictment.  Criminal procedure does not recognize a situation in which Complete indictment that is included in the indictment (as opposed to a certain offense within an existing indictment) – all the more so an indictment that relates to For a whole, separate and different parasha From the affair that remained in the indictment – it "evaporates" into the air and disappears as if it had not been due to the receipt of a claim of protection from justice in respect of him.  Such a result exposes the defendant to the risk of a new criminal proceeding being filed against him for the same affair, whereas the indictment will not be dismissed due to protection from justice after conducting a full criminal proceeding (see Criminal Appeal 2868/13 Haibtov v. State of Israel, paragraph 10 of the judgment of Justice Barak-Erez (August 2, 2018); A. Leist "On Rules of Conduct, General Judgment, and on the Existence of Minor Trials for Examining the Admissibility of Objective Evidence - A New Reading inAdditional Criminal Hearing 5852/10 State of Israel v. Shemesh" The Book of Yoram Danziger 461, 497 (2019)).  When the parties presented the plea bargain to the court on August 28, 2025, the defendant did not ask for an order to cancel the charges that were included in the original indictment and were omitted from the amended indictment.  The accuser's request was, and remains, to convict Fischer of the offenses attributed to him according to his confession as part of the plea bargain; However, in response to the court's question, she noted that it is true that some of the charges were dismissed as part of a plea bargain when "This means cancellation" (p. 25589).  The problem is that the plea bargain included only an agreement regarding Fisher's confession to the facts of the amended indictment and his conviction of the offenses attributed to him in this indictment, and not the consent of the parties or the accuser's request to cancel the other charges that were in the original indictment and did not appear in the amended indictment (as distinct from, for example, the agreement with Defendant 7 of February 24, 2019).  Even after Fischer's counsel clarified that he insists on Fisher's acquittal of these charges (p. 25592), the accuser's attorney's answer remains that from a procedural point of view, there is no uniqueness in this plea bargain."And what was erased...  It is deleted, it is canceled within the framework of the agreement between the parties, it is canceled with all its meanings" (p. 25593).  This time, too, no judicial determination was requested regarding the dismissal of the charges, as opposed to the significance that the accuser attributed to their "expletion" (a term that does not exist in criminal procedure).