In the context of the presiding judge's discretion to deviate from the appropriate punishment range, see also the court's words inCriminal Appeal 7757/21 Marzouki v. State of Israel (May 24, 2022):
"As is clearly evident from the provisions of the law, not in every case in which the therapeutic process advances in a positive direction, the authority set forth in section 40D of the Penal Law must be exercised, otherwise the exception comes and empties the rule of its content."
- As is well known, the court is not obligated to accept the recommendation of the Probation Service, and in this regard, see the words of the Supreme Court in a criminal appeal 4910/16 Avni v. State of Israel (05.04.2017):
"The recommendation of the Probation Service, although it carries considerable weight for the purpose of determining the sentence, as its name implies, is a recommendation, and the final adjudication is the court, which is entitled to adopt or reject the recommendation of the report and to include other punitive considerations as well."
and as determined by the Criminal Appeal Authority 73879-03-25 Shalom Deal v. State of Israel, (21.05.2025):
"Rehabilitation considerations, while important, are not the be-all and end-all, and must be balanced against the additional punitive considerations, first and foremost considerations of appropriateness, retribution, and deterrence."
- In view of the mix of offenses for which the defendants were convicted, their number and the severity of the circumstances of their commission as detailed above, I found that in our case, considerations of appropriateness, retribution and deterrence of the public should be given priority over the personal interest of any of the defendants. In my opinion, the severity of the defendants' actions and the public interest do not allow for a deviation from the appropriate punishment range, and that these are not those exceptional cases that justify deviating from the scope of the sentence.
- Moreover, since the defendants were convicted of economic offenses, the accuser is correct that in accordance with customary case law, public considerations and the need for deterrence should be preferred over their personal considerations.
In this regard, see Criminal Appeal Sentence (Center) 57706-07-23 State of Israel v. Sarandach (April 7, 2024) (hereinafter: "Sarandach Judgment"):