"The premise on the question of the admissibility of evidence is the one that has always been the case with us, and according to which evidence is relevant - Admissibility in a trial. However, In accordance with the said doctrine of the house-The Law Consideration-Opinion on the Inadmissibility of Evidence in Criminal Cases, If it is found that the evidence was obtained unlawfully and its acceptance at trial will create a material violation of the defendant's right to a fair trial that is not in accordance with the definitions of the limitation clause (Emphasis not in the original S.IV). This is a formula of a fundamental balance that strives to achieve a proper compromise between the set of rights and interests relevant to the question of the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence, and in: Exposing the Factual Truth, The fight against criminality as well as the protection of public safety and the rights of crime victims on the one hand; In contrast to the protection of the rights of the accused and the fairness of the criminal proceedings and their purity on the other hand.
The said balancing formula shall be applied to-According to Consideration-The Opinion of a House-The law takes into account the circumstances of each case on its own merits and in accordance with the-The Guiding Attributes We Discussed. Amot-These measures relate to the nature and severity of the illegality involved in obtaining the evidence; The extent of the impact of the improper means of interrogation on the evidence obtained; As well as the question of the harm versus the social benefit involved in its disqualification. The said doctrine shall be general and applicable to all types of evidence, Including confessions of defendants."
- It turns out that, The application of the doctrine in a concrete case is conditional on the fact that the evidence was obtained unlawfully, That is, by using unfair means of interrogation or means that unlawfully violate a protected fundamental right, and its acceptance at trial will significantly harm the defendant's right to a fair trial. The guiding criteria in this context are, Among other things, The nature and severity of the illegality involved in obtaining the evidence, The extent to which the means of investigation affected the evidence obtained, and, Examining the damage versus the social benefit involved in its disqualification. If so, In this track as well, we are required to examine the extent of the actual effect of the use of interrogation methods on obtaining a confession.
- Against the background of the following guiding rules"30 As these are outlined in the case law, Let us first examine the extent to which the defendant's confessions stand up (which were given in the framework of this case before the informants) In the statutory test. For this purpose, We face two questions: The first - What are the improper interrogation methods that were used against the defendant?, According to him,, As part of the interrogation exercise, And the second -Do these affect the defendant's autonomy of free will and lead to the inadmissibility of his confession?.
- As quoted above, The learned defense attorney argued that these fathers are invalid; The use of threats and violence, the violation of the defendant's right not to self-incriminate, as well as the right to remain silent, the right to a fair trial, psychological tricks, and more.
Investigative Tricks and the Use of Informants
- I have not yet turned to the examination of the arguments on their merits., Please note, Because basic concepts are, Because for the purpose of exposing the truth and protecting public safety, Those engaged in the work of investigation and evidence collection are entitled (This includes the police and other investigative authorities), And sometimes even obligated, Adopt various tricks, Despite their inherent element of deception (See - Criminal Appeal 4109/15 Miraz vs. the State of Israel [Posted inNevo] (09.07.17), Section 25 Name). On the other hand,, A distinction must be made between a permissible and kosher trick and a flawed trick that may lead to the invalidation of a confession that was subsequently made. In an attempt by the courts to draw the line separating these two, Determined, Because "A false ploy is a ploy that undermines the interrogee's ability to exercise his right to remain silent and his right to refrain from self-incrimination, and in fact denies, Against the background of the false representation at its core, The interrogee's ability to choose whether to give his confession or not; or harms the message of doing justice." (See the section 25 To the Mirz judgment on the case law referred to there).
- More, Please note, Because the rulings of the courts have already recognized, that the very use of informants constitutes a legitimate investigative ploy, And the act of dubbing should not be seen as, per se, Violation of the interrogee's right to remain silent and his right to refrain from self-incrimination in a manner that leads to the invalidation of a confession made to an informant. (See - Criminal Appeal 1301/06 Elzam N' State of Israel [Posted inNevo] (22.06.09), Name, pp' 210 (Below: "The Elzam Affair"); Criminal Appeal 3817/09 Azberga N' State of Israel, [Posted inNevo] Paragraph 9 (16.09.10)). This is also true when we are dealing with"Passive Dubbed", who refrains from proactive actions and conversations, and whose conduct is limited to tracing the suspect's steps and listening to him, And even when we are dealing with"Active Voiced" who takes steps to proactively and actively extract information from the suspect (The Elzam Affair, pp' 210; See also Criminal Appeal 378/03 Anonymous v.' State of Israel, [Posted inNevo] Paragraph 6 (21.04.05)).
- On the aforementioned side, Keep in mind, Because the use of informants is nothing but an investigative ploy, Therefore,, The usual distinction applies to him between a permissible investigative trick and a prohibited trick.
The Weight of the Confession
- Later, If it is determined that the confession is admissible (Whether it is in the legislative track or in the case law track), The next step must be moved on, which is - Examining the weight of the confession to the informants and knowing the details. In accordance with the ruling, Two Tests for Determining the Weight of a Confession; Internal Test: who wishes to examine the weight of the confession on its own merits in light of the signs of truth that arise from it. The other test is the external test, which seeks to examine the existence of evidentiary indications of the "Something else" Supporting the Confession. Comment on this 22' Judge Arbel BCriminal Appeal 4179/09 State of Israel v.' Volkov [Posted inNevo] (18.10.10) (Below: "The Volkov Affair"), Name in section 8 In her opinion:
"The weight of a confession is measured using two tests. The first is called the internal test and the second is called the external test. The inner test is concerned with the examination of the confession in and of itself, and the examination of the signs of truth that arise from it. Thus, for example, "Her logic or inner irrationality, The arrangement or confusion of the details contained in it, and the like, are signs of common sense that lead a reasonable person to relate to the words of others with confidence" (Criminal Appeal 715/78 Levy N' State of Israel, P"4:33(3) 228, 234 (1979) (Below: The Levy Matter); Criminal Appeal 5825/97 Shalom N' State of Israel, P"45(2) 933, 952 (2001) (Below: The Matter of Peace)). The external test requires the existence of an evidentiary addition of the type "Something else". The Requirement"Something" is a requirement for an objective factor, External to the Defendant's Confession, Pointing to the truth of the subjective confession. This is a verifiable evidentiary addition and not a complicating addition, Therefore, there is no need for you to relate to the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of the offense (The Steckler Matter, Paragraph 20; Criminal Appeal 4762/92 'M N' State of Israel, Paragraph 7 ([Posted inNevo], 4.9.94) (Below: Matter'm)). The purpose of the external test is to remove the fear that although the confession appears to be reliable-According to the internal test, The defendant took responsibility for an offense that he did not commit for any reason (The Steckler Matter, Paragraph 21). Between the two tests, It's the internal and the external, Reciprocal relationships are in place, So the greater the self-weight of the confession, Yes, the need to take the external test is reduced, And vice versa. However, Even if the internal weight of the confession is very great, the court does not convict a person without the existence of the "Something" Even the easiest (The Levy Matter, Ltd.' 234; Matter'm, Paragraph 7). Obviously, in addition to the confession, the rest of the evidence must be examined and whether it can establish a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt (Criminal Appeal 7443/06 Arca N' State of Israel, Paragraph 33 ([Posted inNevo], 28.9.08))."