In this context, There is no choice but to dwell on the fact, Because, At some point, The voice actor Lasri is called out of the dubbing booth for a meeting, Supposedly, With his lawyer. He was out of the dubbing booth for a period of about - 22 Minutes (When the time counter showed, Because the exit from the cell was in a minute 01:07:50 And return to the cabin in a minute - 01:29:42). Needless to say,, that Lasri's actions were the length of time he was outside the detention cell, are not documented in any memo and it is not clear what purpose was behind his exit from the cell. Was it for the purpose of receiving a briefing and/or Guidelines and/or for some other purpose?. As for this issue, We must not ignore the sequence of events and the course of dubbing, As can be learned about them immediately after Lasri's return to the cell. Our Seeing Eyes, Immediately after returning to the cell, Lasri asked about the number of stabbings, emphasizing, Later in the conversation, that the defendant's version is uncomfortable for him. (For example; See - Min 1:30:00 30/20 and' 32 Up to 34 30 - A/23)).
The method of interrogation of the informants, The questions they raised, The sequence of questions, Their Essence, Their order (See in this context - Questions in the context of multiple stabbings, Location, If there was a splash of blood and more), The informant's exit from the cell, No satisfactory explanation; All of these together, They are capable of raising concerns in relation to the informants' knowledge of the prepared details of the factual occurrence that is the subject of the proceeding herein.
- Given all of the above, Is it possible to determine, that the defendant's confession, As it was played to the informants, She was free and voluntary., Or maybe, Improper interrogation methods were used that could lead to harm "Significant and severe" In the autonomy of the interrogee's will and freedom of choice/The Defendant in Relation to the Delivery of His Confession. Can it be said that they were not activated in the collection of his notice?/The defendant's confession was an external means of pressure that could have deprived the interrogee of the ability to choose between giving a confession or refraining from giving it?.
- It seems that, When pouring out the mix of evidence and the investigative methods used in the framework of the proceeding here, As they have been proven before us, Into the Mold of Halakha and Rulings Regarding the Doctrine of Judicial Disqualification, A picture emerges of the product of an investigation that there is no choice but to disqualify; This is given that the interrogation method is not free of flaws that are reflected in the denial of the defendant's right to remain silent and/or due process. Not only that., After all, when we come to examine the confession and its contents, In the face of the prepared details that are not controversial, Then, A number of stumbling blocks and impassable barriers appear on the road leading to the defendant's conviction.
- Insofar as the confession had survived the admissibility test as it was determined In the section 12 To the Ordinance The Evidence, After all,, Even then, This admission would not have survived the admissibility test in accordance with the doctrine of judicial disqualification, As determined in the Issacharov case, which concerns the disqualification of evidence obtained illegally in a criminal proceeding. As you may recall, According to this track, The court must balance a range of considerations and rights relevant to the criminal proceeding, including: The Need to Reach the Truth, The need to fight crime and protect public safety, and the duty to protect the integrity of the criminal proceedings and the rights of suspects and defendants (See and compare - Interest Milstein here"30, Paragraph 1 To Judge Arbel's Judgment). Kerry, The question must be answered - Were the means used to extract the confession so improper that accepting the confession as evidence would substantially impair the defendant's right to a fair trial and the purity of the criminal process? (See for example - Interest MustHav, Paragraphs 87 -89 To the judgment of 22' Judge Shoham; Interest Issacharov, pp' 569 -570).
As mentioned above, In accordance with the Issacharov ruling, The guidelines regarding the exercise of judicial discretion according to the doctrine of judicial invalidation are:
- The nature and severity of the illegality involved in obtaining the evidence;
- The extent of the impact of the means of investigation on the evidence obtained;
- Examining the harm versus the social benefit involved in disqualifying the evidence when the, The court must reach 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 .
Insofar as the first consideration is concerned, in our case, as I discussed at length above, we are not dealing with negligible violations of the rules of proper investigation, but rather a series of serious violations of key basic rights, throughout the investigation.