With regard to the sentence, the appellant argues that she should be sentenced to a prison sentence to be served by way of community service, for several different reasons. First, based on the recommendation of the Probation Service in her case, which the trial court allegedly ignored without giving a satisfactory explanation, and despite the fact that the appellant expressed remorse for her actions. Second, for the reason that she is acquitted of most of the offenses for which she was convicted. Third, it was argued that even given the appellant's current convictions, the harsher sentence imposed on her should be reduced, since in determining the sentencing policy, the trial court relied on other cases that are much more serious than her case; Given that the punishment is even harsher than the one that the state appealed to. With regard to the location of the appellant in the penalty area, it was argued that the court erred in placing her in the center of the compound, in view of her personal characteristics; and in light of the recommendation of the Probation Service.
- To complete the picture, it should be noted that on May 2, 2024, this court (Judge Yosef Elron) accepted the appellant's request to delay the execution of the prison sentence imposed on her.
- On May 11, 2025, an updated report was submitted by the Probation Service in the Appellant's case, in which it was noted, inter alia, that the Appellant regrets her actions; because she takes part in a therapeutic process, thanks to which she begins to show empathy for the kindergarten children and their parents; that she had paid the damages imposed on her in the sentence; and that she fears imprisonment and a possible deterioration, both physical and mental, that may result from it. Finally, the Probation Service reiterated its recommendation regarding the appellant's punishment, after weighing the severity of her actions and their implications for society, on the one hand; and her relatively older age, the absence of her criminal record and the therapeutic process she began on her own initiative, on the one hand.
- The state's position, in the main points of the written argument submitted on its behalf, is that subject to an amendment to its verdict in one of the conviction counts, the appeal against the verdict should be The State emphasizes that the judgment is based mainly on the videos, along with the lack of confidence that the trial court found in the appellant's explanations in relation to them. As to the substance of the matter: As to the offenses of assault, the State maintains, inter alia, that we are dealing with dozens of different incidents in which the Appellant behaved violently and aggressively towards very small toddlers. Even if not all incidents are of a very high level of severity, and there are even borderline cases in terms of their criminality, it was explained that the accumulation of events and their characteristics paint all the incidents in a criminal light. With regard to the offenses of leaving a child unsupervised, the state believes that they clearly exist. Thus, with regard to Charge 8, it was claimed that there was no eye contact with the minors at all, and during this time one of them fell from the swing and the other cried for a long time without anyone approaching him. With regard to Charge 13, it was argued that the videos reflect the danger to which the minor was subjected, and even the actual harm he experienced due to his lack of proper supervision; and that even though the appellant saw the other child near the minor, and certainly heard his screams, she left the room. With regard to the appellant's claims regarding the responsibility of the assistants, the state maintains that the appellant, in her capacity as the head kindergarten teacher, bears in any case responsibility for everything that happens in the kindergarten. Finally, and with regard to the offenses of abuse, the State notes that in Charge 15, the trial court held, from a factual point of view, that the appellant gave an order not to change the child's clothes for a short period of time only (as opposed to giving an instruction that is not limited in time, as alleged in the indictment); Given this determination, the severity of the act has decreased, so that it does not amount to abuse, but rather establishes an offense of lesser severity. With regard to Charge 16, it was argued that the Appellant admitted that her actions were done in front of the kindergarten children who were present at the scene, and that this very exposure amounts to emotional abuse of them.
- On May 19, 2025, a hearing was held before us, during which the parties reiterated the main points of their written arguments. Counsel for the appellant reiterated that the appellant, by virtue of her role as a kindergarten teacher, was forced to use certain force against the children – but this is not necessarily an assault, and not every time a child cries, this indicates that she has caused real injury. With regard to the sentence, it was once again argued that the recommendation of the Probation Service, which takes into account the appellant's advanced age, her mental state, and her initiated involvement in a therapeutic process, should be adopted.
The representative of the Probation Service reiterated in the hearing what was stated in the latest reports, and noted that a prison sentence behind bars is liable to worsen the appellant's mental and physical state.