Another amendment concerning his case, Revolving around the interrogation of a suspected minor at night. Section 9th The Youth Law instructs us, Because a minor will not be interrogated at night (Kerry - After the hour 22:00, When it comes to a minor over the age of 14). There are also limitations to this right, such as, The proximity of the interrogation to the arrest and the situation in which there is a danger of disrupting the interrogation process. In this case, too, there must be a reasoned and written decision, On behalf of an authorized officer.
In a similar context, The issue of a minor staying together in a detention cell with an informant cannot be overlooked. - An adult who is a police officer. This action has been recognized in case law as permissible and does not contradict the purpose of the Section 13 of the Youth Law, Aimed at protecting detained minors (See - Criminal Appeal 481/12 Anonymous v.' State of Israel [Posted inNevo] (30.12.2014), In the paragraph 20 Name). Can't say, that this purpose was thwarted when an adult police officer was brought into the appellant's cell. This action is tantamount to an investigative action and has already been stopped, Because bringing an informant into a detainee's cell is a legitimate investigative ploy.
From the general to the individual
- After I was required to understand the normative framework for the matter, I will now proceed to discuss the improper means that were used against the defendant, According to the claim.
- The minor claim from the defendant's mouth relates to, As mentioned above, The sequence of the four interrogation exercises carried out by the police; The interrogation exercise carried out by the informants in the middle of the city of Afula (Below: "First dubbing"); The interrogation exercise as done by interrogator Ben Lulu at the Afula police station on the day of the arrest; The interrogation exercise in which the defendant was recorded in the police car by Investigator G'Hadad Abu Saleh while he was being transferred to the police station in Hadera and the interrogation exercise carried out by the informants inside the detention cell at the Hadera station (Below: "The second dub").
The first dub - the interrogation exercise from February 28, 2016
- As expressed in the evidence (See - In this context, Among other things, The testimony of interrogator Ben Lulu), The Police She turned to a special unit (whose details are under a certificate of confidentiality), which in turn carried out an investigative exercise so that two of its members approached the defendant and spoke to him implicitly about the incident that was the subject of the murder. They did this at around 1:45 P.M., when the defendant was on Sharet Street in Afula. At first, the defendant postponed the conversation with them to a later stage, and later, when they met again, he told them that – "There was a mistake in identification" (See the testimony of Ben Lulu, p. 99, lines 1-3). In this context, a listening report (P/24) prepared by the witness Dina Barazani was submitted to the court file. In addition, exhibits were submitted – P/140 and P/141: the interrogation disc and the transcript of that interrogation dated February 28, 2016. In addition, an action report and a briefing report were submitted by the informant known as "Shai Abergil" (hereinafter: "Abergil") (see P/142 and P/203 respectively) as well as an action report and a briefing report by the informant known as "Meir Bohbot" (hereinafter: "Bohbot") (exhibits P/143 and P/204, respectively). Needless to say, these two voice-overs (Abergil and Bohbot) were the ones who took part in the first dubbing.
The accuser's arguments
- The two informants, Abergil and Bohbot, testified before us. According to the accuser, there was no flaw in the conduct of Abergil and Bohbot. As claimed, they acted within the framework of the law, without the use of improper means. This is a dubbing operation that was carried out in the defendant's natural environment, in a public place, and while resorting to a legitimate trick. Hence, their testimonies must be trusted and the defendant's external confession that was given to them must be accepted. According to the accuser's approach, Do not accept the arguments in"20. The defendant regarding the use of the invalid fathers and exerting pressure on the defendant. The witnesses left a positive impression. Yes, We are interested in police officers with professional experience who are familiar with the limitations of the law regarding exercises with minors, Thus, throughout the exercise, no pressure was exerted on the defendant and the conduct with him was in accordance with the language and outline that the defendant adopted and chose to use.
- According to the accuser, Aberge'Yale did not use"The Fathers of Invalidity" and did not exert pressure on the defendant. In these circumstances, It is clear that the defendant did not feel threatened. This can be learned from the defendant's conduct and his cooperation with Aberg'Yul. More, The accuser sought to reject the argument that - Aberge'Yale used offensive language to intimidate the defendant. According to Aberg,'Yul, According to the accuser,, It will be justified to adopt them, The latter developed the conversation with the defendant in accordance with the defendant's answers, When both parties to the conversation understood each other well and expressed themselves voluntarily and without any pressure. The accuser also referred to the audio disc of the exercise, from which it is possible to learn how the conversation between them was conducted.
- Moreover,, The accuser added and referred to the use of the word "Mistake", As done by Aberg'Yul. In the meantime, The reference is to the answer of the witness Aberg.'Yale in Notion, Because he used the word "Mistake" Since he actually had no details about the murder and the use of the word "Mistake" As an open word, it is intended to clarify the meaning of the matter. Add to that the fact, Because I will indeed'Yale used the word "Mistake" Many times. Hall, Ultimately, Anyone who claimed to have made a mistake in identification, It was the defendant himself who gave the words of his own free will, so it is clear, Because his words did not come in response to a closed or guiding question.
The Defense's Arguments
- On the other hand,, The learned defense attorney has a number of arguments against the first dubbing. First, He complained about the lack of visual documentation of the encounter between the defendant and the informants. As part of that dubbing, three people participated, When two got out of the car and approached the defendant, while the third, whose identity has been imposed on confidentiality, Left in the car. As claimed, It should have been, Because the other crew member left in the car, Will make a visual documentation of the meeting. Such documentation could have pointed to the dimensional differences between the defendant and the informants (A difference that we were impressed by with our own eyes when the two took the witness stand) (pp' 258 For the record, Lines 2-1) And he was also able to point out other elements while dubbing, The manner and course of dubbing; Data that could assist in the work of clarifying the truth.
- It was further claimed, that the recording between the informants and the defendant reveals disturbing details that are supposed to keep the court awake. This is because one can only try to imagine what went through that moment in the mind of a minor boy, Asher stumbled, Suddenly, While he was in the center of Afula, A situation in which he is approached by two thugs who introduce themselves by names - Shai Aberg'Yale and Meir Bohbot and have a conversation with him with aggressive and threatening elements. The defense method, To the open layer of the conversation was added a hidden layer that was recognized in case law as one of the fathers of invalidity that meets the description "Seduction and Persuasion".
- As for the visible level of the invalid ancestors, The learned defense attorney discussed the situation described above, Regarding making contact with the defendant in the city center, Something that was terrified. The implications of choosing the nickname of one of the informants as the answer to the name cannot be ignored - Shai Aberg'Yul, Neighbor, It is famous that this family is known as a crime family, So the use of this name is only to create a threat, Both on the objective and subjective levels. Aberge'He even let the defendant understand that he was a senior criminal connected to a crime family and"Harish Company", This is in addition to the use of expressions and words that projected a degree of threat towards the defendant.
- Moreover, Throughout the dubbing, This is according to the learned defense counsel; The informants led the defendant to believe, Because he has the choice to choose one of two options. The first - that the act of murder was, Supposedly, The result of a deliberate act and then since the defendant committed "Mistake" In criminal terms, He will have to reduce the economic damage caused to the informants (who were portrayed by the defendant as criminals) At a height of - 300,000 ₪. The Second Option, She is the one who relates to the incident that occurred, Supposedly, II"Mistake" In the simple sense of the word Kerry - Unintentionally; Then, In this state of affairs, The Informants (who presented themselves as the holders of the right to the debt) will cooperate in a friendly manner with the defendant, To find ways to cover that debt.
- The Hidden Layer of the Invalid Ancestors, Expressed in a sophisticated way, So those informants used suggestive elements that were intended to fix the possibility in the defendant's mind, Because he was the one who committed the crime by mistake. As claimed, They took advantage of the power disparity between them and the defendant and planted in his mind the possibility that he would be better off saying, Because he did the act by mistake.
- Hence, According to the learned defense attorney, This is an unacceptable exercise, It is forbidden and forfeited that it should not be allowed to be used. This is a clear use of the invalid ancestors, This is given the act of threatening violence, Using temptation and intimidation that are illegitimate and exceed the limits of what is permissible. Hence, The interrogation exercise should be disqualified, They are by virtue of Section 12 To the Ordinance The Evidence and by virtue of the doctrine of judicial invalidation.
- The learned defense attorney, He was not satisfied with these, He also referred to the words of the two informants in court. According to him, Aberge'Yale lied in his testimony before the court. Hence, His words can no longer be trusted. Aberge'Yale claimed that the defendant was not threatened and that he was the one who offered on his own initiative to help the informant and even compensate him. In his cross-examination, When confronted with the transcription that reflects the course of the dubbing, It came up clearly, Because I'll'He was the one who demanded that the defendant help him. Yes, Clarified, that there is no offer on the part of the defendant for compensation on his behalf. Moreover; Loaded, Because the defendant signaled to the informant (During their meeting) Marking a knife, Although such a description is not included in the"The action that took place after the exercise (A/142).
- In addition to this, When it comes to choosing a name "Aberge'Yul", Aberge'Yale noted, Because there was no reason and/Or the intention behind choosing this name. Moreover, Aberge'Yale was asked if he wished to present himself to the defendant as a known offender and also in this context , He did not know how to provide satisfactory answers. Witness Aberg'Yale was also asked about the briefing he gave before the dubbing act, and in this context he also gave incorrect details. According to the learned defense counsel, Aberge'Yale was caught lying during his testimony in court. This witness exerted improper pressure on the defendant-The minor, Presented himself as a criminal connected to crime families, Demonstrated aggression and superiority towards a defendant-Teenager, Executed, In relation to him, improper use of psychological elements, Including suggestion. Yes, Aberge'Yale penetrated into the depths of the defendant's mind-He minimized the idea of the mistake, and it was not by chance that the minor replied out of distress, Because, This was a mistake, he reiterates, For this is his statement (of the defendant) According to Aberg's words'10 and at the latter's request.
- The learned defense attorney also referred to the testimony of the second informant who participated in the dubbing, Witness Meir Bohbot. During the exercise Bohbot Was passive compared to Aberg'Yale Asher conducted the conversation with the defendant. Bohbot Interrogated, Among other things, As to the course of the dubbing and regarding the information that was given to him and Laberg'Yale as part of the briefing that preceded the dubbing . Yes, Questions were asked about the way the informants presented themselves to the defendant and whether they intended to present themselves as criminals. In accordance with the defense's arguments, The witness's answers can be understood, Because, This witness also lied in his testimony and acted improperly so that the interrogation exercise of the first dubbing as it was done in the city, It has no place in the Israeli legal system and must be disqualified.
- In this context, the learned defense counsel referred toCriminal case (District, II"Q) 39696-01-14 State of Israel v.' Anonymous [Posted inNevo] (06.8.14) In this context, a case was discussed in which minors were suspected of committing a robbery of an explosion using a weapon. Marine Explorers"R. Lachish impersonated the men of the criminal Shalom Domrani and approached one of the boys, Not inside a detention cell, claiming that the act he did caused them financial damage and that he should compensate them. The minor (That he was not the defendant, But a witness in the trial) He confessed during the dubbing exercise and even incriminated his accomplice in the crime. District Court (During the trial of the incriminated minor), accepted a claim that - The interrogation exercise carried out by the policemen posing as criminals must be disqualified, So at the end of the proceeding, The minor is acquitted.
More, The defense attorney referred to the decision that was given in the framework of Miscellaneous Criminal Applications 5953/10 Alperon vs. State of Israel [Posted inNevo] With regard to the use of the surname Abergi'and various expressions used by the informants; A decision that he wanted to teach us, Because the use of a crime family name is not innocent.