Sentencing the appropriate punishment
- In light of the accumulation of all the considerations that I have reviewed above, my conclusion is that in the circumstances of the case, despite the severity of Fischer's actions, especially in the 'Alon Hassan Case', the appropriate punishment should be exceeded and an actual imprisonment should be avoided. The main considerations that led me to this conclusion are the cumulative damage to Fischer's defense caused by the conduct of the Department for the Investigation of Police as detailed in detail; the torture of the law caused by the prolongation of the trial, which is rooted in the conduct of the Department for the Investigation of Police; and the period of detention and detention under electronic supervision in which Fischer was subjected, due to the original indictment filed against him, and at the end of the day it turned out that most of it was baseless – and this is in addition to the other circumstances that I have reviewed extensively. At the same time, I would like to emphasize that if it were not for these considerations, there is no doubt that there would have been room to impose a prison sentence on Fischer for the offenses of which he was convicted.
Subsequently, I considered that Fischer should be sentenced to a comprehensive sentence for the two incidents, which expresses the connection between them, which is expressed, inter alia, in Malka's involvement in the three charges and their violation of the protected social values of moral integrity and public trust in government institutions.
The rule established in case law is that in order to prevent a situation in which a sinner is rewarded, a person convicted of a bribery offense must be fined that expresses the benefit he derived from the offense (Criminal Appeal 8573/96 Mercado v. State of IsraelIsrSC 51(5) 481, 587 (1997); Criminal Appeal 5076/14 Sheetrit v. State of Israel, paragraph 116 (December 29, 2015)). In the circumstances of the case, the justification for deviating from the appropriate penalty range also leads to the avoidance of imposing a fine on Fischer, especially since the amended indictment does not attribute to him the actual derivation of financial profit from the offenses. Another main reason for avoiding the imposition of a fine is the heavy economic damage that Fischer suffered from the temporary seizure of most of his property, and the cessation of his practice as a lawyer as a result of the original indictment filed against him, which in retrospect was largely refuted.