Summary of the evidence and arguments regarding the sentence
The accuser's arguments for punishment
- At the beginning of her remarks, the accuser's counsel, Adv. Shira Kani-Tal, noted that she accepted that in the current case, the complexity of the sentencing process exceeds the complexity that usually exists at this stage of the criminal proceeding. The special complexity stems from the largest gap between the facts and offenses of which Fischer was accused at the outset, and the facts and offenses that the parties agreed on at the end of the road and for which Fischer was convicted as part of the plea bargain. In addition, it is accepted by the accuser that the many and lengthy meetings devoted to clarifying flaws and omissions in the conduct of the investigation and the criminal proceedings were justified and led to the exposure of problematic findings in the Authority's conduct. These findings contributed to the accuser's agreement to detract from significant parts of the original indictment, as detailed by her at length at the time of the presentation of the plea bargain. Despite all this, the accuser argues that at the present stage, it is imperative to return to the guiding principle of sentencing, which is the determination of the appropriate punishment for the serious criminal offenses committed by Fischer and convicted, and the extent to which these offenses harm protected social values and the public interest. Adherence to this fundamental principle requires that the discussion of the question of Fischer's sentence focus on the facts and offenses that were agreed upon, and not on the acts and omissions of the investigating authority and the prosecutor; After all, the events for which Fisher was convicted began in the years 2013-2014, and these events preceded the acts and omissions of the state that impaired the investigation and prosecution proceedings since the end of April 2015 onwards. The accuser does not dispute the particular weight known to these defects and omissions even in the context of the sentencing of the sentence, since they establish a claim of protection from justice, which is relevant both to the determination of the appropriate punishment range and to the determination of the appropriate punishment within the compound. However, according to her, this is a limited weight that should not be seen as the be-all and end-all. Counsel for the accuser sought to emphasize that if it were not for the rough path required to manage the case and to expose the claims in the field of defense from justice, the accuser's position would have been a much harsher punishment.
- Counsel for the accuser divided the offenses of which Fisher was convicted For two events, while discussing in each incident the severity of the acts in the circumstances of their execution and the degree of Fisher's guilt. The justification for this division was explained by the substantive-moral test established in the case law, and given that even the separate acts in time and place in the "Yair Biton Affair" and the "Night Meeting Affair" were all intended to harm the same protected social value in the framework of the offense of obstruction of justice.
- The First Event It is the acts of disruption described in the "Yair Biton Affair" indictment and in the "Night Meeting Affair" indictment.
The Yair Biton affair' - The accusing attorney detailed the improper assistance that Fischer received from Malka, a senior investigation officer in an elite unit of the police, so that Fischer could help Biton, who was both a client and a close friend of his. Malka gave Fischer materials from an undercover criminal investigation, which no party outside the police was allowed to disclose at that stage, including questions that were planned to be hurled at Biton and that were given to Fischer on an official document of the Israel Police. Fischer even had a forbidden discussion with Malka about the materials. Later, Fischer traveled with the classified materials to meet Biton in Budapest, where he revealed the materials to him and discussed them with him, even though he knew that Malka had obtained them through crime and that they were not supposed to be in Fischer's possession at all. Fischer also received warnings from Malka about Biton's arrests and the dates of the planned break-in of the investigation in his case, and this information was also used in an attempt to harm the investigation. Fischer also tried to harm the investigation by moving the attorney who accompanied it and who was identified in it as a leading force, by offering him to run in the tender.