"The requirement of 'something extra' is flexible and has open embroidery. The type of matters that may lead to her satisfaction varies from case to case, and also depends on the reliability of the confession itself. The greater the weight of this confession, the less weight the "something" needed to verify the confession, and conversely, the less weight the confession has, the greater the weight of the "something." Therefore, it was also held that there may be cases in which it will be possible to suffice with "something" whose weight is "light as a feather"... On the other hand, it was determined, there may be cases in which the weight that will be required for "something" will be so great that it becomes a requirement of "assistive evidence"... Hence also the words of my colleague President Barak, that 'evidence that has been found fit to serve as 'something' in one matter may not be considered worthy of serving as 'something' in another matter, since everything is contingent on the circumstances of the matter"
(The Milstein case, paragraph 20 of Justice Levy's judgment).
- In our case, As mentioned, The confession to committing this offense comes to the informants ( See - A/20 and the transcription - A/23a). As detailed above, I did not find accepting the confession to the informants admissible with regard to the murder incident. The questioner will ask - What is the conclusion regarding the weight of the confession regarding the offense of arson??
- Similar, Because, Against the background of the circumstances surrounding the defendant's confession to the informants here, and against the background of the invalidation of the confession in relation to the murder incident, There is no choice but to disqualify the confession, Even regarding the act of arson. Nose, If we assume, that the defendant's confession as to the act of arson is admissible, In the circumstances of the case, It would be justified to demand additional evidentiary.
- As the defendant testified before us, His confession in the arson incident came on his own initiative and without being asked about it by anyone. As mentioned, The defendant volunteered the information on his own initiative. In his testimony before us, he referred to this confession when he stated in this language: "Because I knew Y's father was burned' The car. So as if the justification for the murder I thought it was' On the bike it's because it's like I burned his car, It's not for nothing that you're going to get it.?" (pp' 556, Lines 25-23). He later added, In response to the question of how he could indicate what type of vehicle was burned, He answered; "Because Afula is a small city, it's famous in seconds" (pp' 556, Row 26).
- Conclusion; Similar to the defendant's confession to the informants regarding the murder case, in relation to which I determined, Because it came not of the defendant's free will, Because as a result of the exertion of pressure and the use of improper means that I discussed above, The same is true of his confession regarding the arson incident. After all,, That this confession would certainly have been influenced by the same pressures and circumstances, Such as; The fact that the interrogation in which the defendant confessed (Referring to the second dubbing) Made without any visual documentation. Yes, The dubbing process included statements that projected a significant amount of threats, Shouting and intimidation, All of this is close to the confession that was given. Not only that., Evident, Because as part of his words to the informants, The defendant provided various details that later turned out to be false (For example; When to specify, Because his mother was asleep at home and did not get up on the night of the murder, and this was the time when he mentioned, Because he stayed overnight at his parents' house on the night of the murder and more...). Damping, Severny, that it would be very difficult to separate the confession regarding the arson incident from the entirety of the defendant's version. My remarks are all the more reinforced in light of the lack of detail in the defendant's confession regarding the arson incident (Especially the lack of evidence regarding his father's car and/or the family of the defendant who was set on fire, As claimed, by Y'), Its course and details. Yes, As part of his confession regarding the arson of the vehicle, the defendant stated, Because this act came against the background of the arson of a Subaru car belonging to his parents. Our Seeing Eyes, II - pp' 31 30 - A/23A, Name, The defendant claimed, For 10' He burned his parents' Subaru car, This is against the background of a financial debt in the amount of 250 ₪ (Name, Lines 9 -22). Again, Ltd.' 52 Lines 1 - 23, The defendant again argued, Because against the background of a financial debt in the amount of 250 ₪, J' Resin of a Subaru car belonging to his father (of the defendant) (Name, Row 16) And in response to this, The defendant burned the car belonging to Y.'s parents' (The Silverado). Add to this, The option should not be ruled out, that the defendant sought to demonstrate a degree of power and force towards the informants, This is in order not to be portrayed as a weak person. Above Necessity, I will note, Because, Even if I had reached a conclusion regarding the admissibility of this confession, After all, in light of the weight (The Relatively Small) To be given, The requirement for additional evidentiary evidence is increased in the circumstances of the case, So the existing evidence that the accuser pointed to is not enough, In order to satisfy the requirement of the"Something else"; Especially when I don't have enough indication and detail about the subaru that burned down. My words are doubly valid, In light of the defendant's argument (That was not hidden at all) According to her - M's Subaru-The defendant was never set on fire (See - pp' 8 For summaries of the defense's arguments as well as a section 304 Defense attorney's summaries). Yes, His testimony and/Or the words of Y' In this context, They were never brought before us. Moreover, About-According to the facts of the indictment , The defendant set fire to the vehicle (As attributed to him there) In revenge for setting fire to his uncle's car; It is not superfluous to mention, For in this context no evidence of such arson was placed on our table (Which is already the case, It contradicts the contents of the defendant's confession, As reflected in the informants, According to which, The vehicle that was set on fire, Supposedly, Belongs to the defendant's parents). Add to this, By virtue of the doctrine of judicial invalidation, The defendant's words can be dismissed, As reported to the informants, Regardless of the question of the credibility and correctness of the matter, when the main attention is directed to the fairness of the criminal proceeding.
The Duties of the Law Enforcement Authorities
- In the margins of my remarks, it is impossible to overlook the conduct of the law enforcement authorities, as expressed in the framework of the investigation of the incident that is the subject of this proceeding. Quite a few resources have been invested, as part of this case, for the purpose of exposing the truth. There is no dispute that the law enforcement authorities must act in the ways at their disposal, in accordance with the outline set out in the provisions of the law, for the purpose of discovering the truth, exposing the identity of criminals and bringing them to justice. However, this must be done while preserving the rights of the interrogee and the accused. In this context, it is clear that the end does not sanctify the means. The Supreme Court referred to this well in the framework of the Issacharov ruling, there at paragraph 46, when it held as follows:
"The admission in a trial of evidence obtained illegally by law enforcement officials may, in certain circumstances, harm central values in our legal system, including the administration of justice, the fairness and purity of the criminal proceeding, and the protection of the dignity and liberty of the accused. According to a broad conception of the work of doing justice, it is not summarized in the disclosure of the truth and the correct application of the law to the facts of a given case; The administration of justice is also based on the way in which the court reaches a decision in the circumstances of the case before it. Basing the conviction on evidence that was obtained illegally or in a significant violation of a protected person's right allows the investigative authorities to enjoy the fruits of their sin, and it may create an incentive for improper investigative actions in the future. Acceptance of such evidence may be perceived as giving the court a confirmation of the said illegality and as giving a hand, even if after the fact, to the improper conduct of the investigating authorities. With this in mind, in certain circumstances, the admissibility of the evidence at trial may harm the fairness and purity of the judicial process. The public's trust in the judicial system, whose role it is to protect the rights of the individual against illegal governmental acts, is also liable to be harmed. It has already been stated in our case law in another context that: "The outcome of the proceeding is not a legal decision that depends on airspace. It also includes a decision as to the proper way to conduct the proceeding and to protect the rights of the litigants before the court... A serious procedural defect is, to a large extent, a serious material defect" (the words of President Barak in retrial 7929/96 Kozli, supra [published in Nevo] at p. 564). Therefore, the administration of justice in the broad sense and the preservation of the public's trust in the judicial system; the protection of the rights of the defendant and the fairness of the criminal proceedings and his purity; and the common interest of both the general and the individual in disqualifying illegal means of interrogation and in deterring the investigating authority from taking similar measures in the future; All of these support the fact that, in appropriate circumstances, significant illegality in obtaining the evidence will lead to its disqualification even if there is no concern about the veracity of its content."