Therefore, the conclusion is necessary that the defendant intended to cause serious injury by his actions, and that he acted with the aim of completing the offense.
An act of terror
- The defendant is charged with the first charge of offenses of a terrorist act of sabotage with aggravated intent, operation with a weapon for the purpose of terrorism, as well as a terrorist act of arson. I am under the impression that the defendant's actions do indeed constitute an "act of terrorism", as defined in the law.
The term "terrorist act" is defined in section 2(a) of the Counter-Terrorism Law, as follows:
"Terrorist act" - an act that constitutes an offense or a threat to commit such an act, in respect of which all of the following apply:
(1) They were motivated by a political, religious, nationalist or ideological motive;
(2) are done with the intention of instilling fear or panic in the public or for the purpose of compelling a government or other governmental authority, including a government or other governmental authority of a foreign state, or an international public organization, to take an act or refrain from taking an act;
(3) In an act that was done or an act that was threatened to be done, there was one of the following, or a real danger to one of the following:
(a) Serious injury to a person's body or liberty;
...
(c) Serious damage to property, in the circumstances in which it was committed there is a real possibility that it will cause serious damage as stated in subparagraphs (a) or (b) and that was done with the intention of causing such damage;
...
(e) Severe damage to infrastructure, systems, or essential services, or severe disruption thereof, or severe damage to the country's economy or environment;
For the purposes of this definition -
- The act or threat as stated in paragraph (3)(a) is committed using a weapon or knife, it shall be considered an act of terrorism even if the provisions of paragraph (2) are not met;
The term "weapon" is defined in section 2(a) of the Counter-Terrorism Law as defined in section 144(c) of the Penal Law.
- As it emerges from the definition of a "terrorist act", the existence of a terrorist act that entailed a real risk of serious injury to a person's body, and which was carried out with the use of a weapon, is contingent on the following cumulative conditions being met: first, that the act was carried out for a nationalist or ideological motive, and second, that the act constituted a real risk of serious harm to a person's body or liberty.
In this case, the defendant used Molotov cocktails, which constitute weapons for all intents and purposes, and the rest of the cumulative conditions are also met in his case, as follows.