Yes, as appears from the testimony of the informant before us, the defendant signaled to the informant (during the meeting between them) a marking of a knife (even though such a description was not included in the action report prepared by the informant shortly after the exercise (P/142) and naturally, given the fact that it was a marking, he has no mention in the transcript of the dubbing). Abergil remarked in this context: "I asked him how it was like when I made the movement of a gun in my hand and he said no." (See the end of section 107 above).
In this context, I will add and point out, Because in the framework of two"8 The Object of the Action/142 (Starting from a line 3), Aberge'Yale noted, Because - "... He told me how I could compensate you, I told him he would think of something and then a car arrived at the scene and... (The Defendant) He turned to me and told me to get to his book in half an hour and we would solve the matter". Further to the same document, Averg also noted'Yul, Because the defendant told him later that he would look into how to compensate him. These words of Aberg:'They contradict the content of the conversation (See - A/140) that took place between him and the defendant. Browse the transcript of the conversation, Melamed, Because there was no offer from the defendant to compensate the informant, Neither at the beginning nor at the end of the conversation. All that was proposed by the defendant, He - To help the informants and this is in continuation of their words and their contact with him. (See also the minutes of the hearing from the day 29.3.17, pp' 231 Row 19 Up to pp' 232 Row 4).
Although the defendant said the words "mistaken identification", the informant had already told him (on page 2 of P/40):The old man went... By mistake... I think it's a mistake. I don't know if he had anything. If he had anything he would talk to me". In other words, the idea that the deceased died due to a mistake without having a dispute with anyone came from the informants.
- Severny, Because the conclusion regarding the inadmissibility of a statement is correct even when examining the matter through the lens of the doctrine of judicial invalidation, As reflected in the Issacharov ruling. I will briefly address this exam below., While the conclusions as detailed above (As for the legislative track) will serve me here as well.
- For the purpose of the exam, If certain evidence was obtained unlawfully and if its acceptance at trial would lead to a material violation of the defendant's right to a fair trial, The court must consider, Among other considerations,, These:
- The nature and severity of the illegality involved in obtaining the confession;
- The extent to which the illegal means of interrogation had on the credibility of the confession obtained;
- The Social Harm and Benefit Involved in the Disqualification of the Confession.
But this is clear, Because this is not a closed list of improper means of interrogation, And the court must always come to a conclusion, that the acceptance of the evidence obtained illegally will lead to a real violation of the defendant's right to a fair criminal trial.
- As far as a consideration is concerned, The first, Thus, in our case, we are not dealing with negligible violations of the rules of proper investigation, Rather, it is a series of serious violations that are reflected, Among other things, The use of language and words that contain a considerable degree of threat and intimidation (that were directed at a minor who was not yet in the status of a suspect in committing an offense). Yes, The method of speaking and interrogating that was done using the name of a crime family cannot be overlooked., Using a suggestive investigative method that included the use of the word "Mistake" Countless times, All as described above, And even with clarification, Because stepping into one outline is much preferable to choosing another outline that could entail damage to the defendant. It should be emphasized, It was clear from the words of the informants, Because if the defendant chooses the option of the "Mistake", Then, The"Criminals" (The Informants - that they are also police officers - who succeeded in their conduct and statements in creating an atmosphere of threats, While creating a feeling, For it will be bad for the defendant if he is not willing to act according to what is offered to him) They will come to meet him. Damping, Don't say, Because in such a case, We are concerned with a negligible violation.
- As to the consideration The second, Visible, Because the investigation (That was unfair) affected the defendant's behavior and led him to hand over "First Thanksgiving" This is in order to satisfy the two "The Criminals" and"Download" them on his back, So that you don't "They will fall on him". As he said, They let the defendant understand, Because he has two options; The first - To say, Because the act was the result of "Mistake"; Then, They and the Defendant, Together they will think of a solution to the problem. The second - That the act was not a mistake; Then - In such a situation, The defendant will have to bear losses of about - 300,000 ₪, Otherwise "They will fall on him", According to the language used in the dialogue between them. The questioner will ask, What prevented the defendant from arguing, Because he has nothing to do with the murder? After all,, The way was open for him to claim his innocence? In order to answer this question, The development of the conversation between the defendant and the informants must be monitored. Beginning, The defendant denied any connection to the murder. Hall, Later, He chose to go a long way in the path that the informants followed, While holding a compass, Navigating and leading the ship on which the defendant was boarded, Towards the Version of the - "Mistake". At this point, The defendant could not jump from the ship that had already begun sailing. Yes, the fact cannot be ignored, Because he chose to say, Because it's"Mistake" According to the informants' wishes. The fact is, Because at the beginning of the dubbing conversation, he said - " I didn't do it at all."; "It's not me, it's me .. It's nothing, it's just that." ; " It's not a mistake, it's a mistake ...". Later, After the informants did not let go of him, The defendant said - "What do you call it?? This mistake? Mistake then yes then mistake there is nothing to do it was by mistake ". In my opinion, In such a state of affairs, When the informants pushed the defendant into a closed and dark corner, So they left him no choice (Using unacceptable methods, Degree of Threat and Intimidation) Choose a neutral line of defense that is free of effects and/or biases, Rising, Because the interrogation method was unfair, influenced the defendant's behavior and version.
- As for the third consideration, Concerning Considerations of Harm and Social Benefit, Severny, Because the benefit of invalidating the statement in such a case outweighs the damage involved. In this context, I refer to the words of 22' President Beinisch (As described at the time) In the matter of Issacharov, There, she left the issue of the weight that should be attributed to the severity of the offense when the court comes to invalidate a confession by virtue of the doctrine of judicial invalidation. There she mentioned, Because it is possible that the invalidation of evidence may be unduly detrimental to the interests of protecting public safety - When it comes to a defendant who is accused of very serious offenses. At the same time, As I briefly discussed above, In later case law, there is a trend that adopts the determination that - The severity of the offense, per se, Does not justify the acceptance of evidence obtained illegally (See, for example,, Interest Farhi , S' 19 To the judgment of Judge A' Levy; Interest Al 'Aqa; Criminal Appeal 6144/10 Gatzau N' State of Israel [Posted inNevo] (10.4.2013, S' 30 To the judgment of Justice G.'And Bran). Yes, In this context, You can refer to the strip"IV Object Criminal Appeal 2868/13 It must be good' State of Israel (Posted inNevo, 02.8.18), The name was determined by the Honorable Judge Shoham in the following language - "Another note relates to a consideration concerning the severity of the offense. As you may recall, This issue remains undecided in the Issacharov case, However, from the consistent rulings of this court, it can be said that the severity of the offense will not constitute a consideration for avoiding the disqualification of evidence, In accordance with the doctrine of judicial invalidation, For it is precisely in serious offenses that the defendant's right to a fair trial must be respected, And there is no logic in applying the doctrine to only minor offenses (See, In this context, I stood inCriminal Appeal 3239/14 Khamaysa N' State of Israel [Posted inNevo] (8.11.2006) (Below: The Hamaisa Affair) and the Criminal Appeal Authority 1921/18 Dor Farmers inTax Appeal N' State of Israel [Posted inNevo] (27.5.2018); Judge A's Position' A' Levy in the Farhi case; Judge N's Position' Handel BCriminal Appeal 5956/08 Al-'Aqa 50' State of Israel [Posted inNevo] (23.11.2011); Judge Y's Position' Danziger BCriminal Appeal 10049/08 Abu Issa' State of Israel [Posted inNevo] (23.8.2012) (Below: The Abu Issa Matter); But see the dissenting opinion of Justice Y.' Amit BCriminal Appeal 5417/07 Bonner N' State of Israel [Posted inNevo] (30.5.2013))".
Yes, in the same context, we can refer to the judgment that was given only recently - Serious Crimes Case 20705-07-14 State of Israel v. Radai [published in Nevo] (November 26, 2018).