The criminal prohibition of this offense is intended to help eradicate the negative phenomenon brought about by the "knife subculture", according to which "Young people carry knives of all kinds, as if it were an item of necessary clothing such as a handkerchief or something else that a person carries in his pocket as a key or as a mobile phone" (Criminal Appeal 9133/04 David Gordon v. State of Israel (20.12.2004)).
The Factual Basis is limited to the possession of the knife, and there is no requirement to prove that the knife was improperly used, or any other use. This prohibition is intended to reduce the chances of pulling a knife out of an owner's pocket for the purpose of improper and harmful use of it.
Article 3424 The Penal Law defines the term "possession" as follows:
"A person's control over something that is in his hands, in the hands of another, or in any place, whether the place belongs to him or not; and that which is in the possession or possession of one or more members of a group, with the knowledge and consent of the others, shall be deemed to be in the possession and possession of each of them and of all of them alike;".
The Circumstantial Element Requires the presence of "Knife" or "Pocket knife", according to their definition Section 184 According to the Penal Law:
""Knife" - a tool with a blade or other tool capable of stabbing or cutting;
"Knife" - a folding knife with a flame length not exceeding ten centimeters and which cannot be transformed, with the help of a spring or other means, into a permanent flame knife;"
In the The Mental Element Thus, this is a behavioral offense, which by definition does not require "intent." Any behavioral offense of criminal thought, as defined In section 20(a) According to the Penal Law, the mental element required is awareness of the nature of the act (the possession) and the existence of the circumstances (the fact that the "thing" being held is a knife).
- A good possible defense for the offense of possession of a knife is proof that the defendant held the knife for a valid purpose and that he does not fulfill his duty unless he proves this claim to the extent that he meets the balance of probabilities. The defendant must therefore prove that the holding of the knife (or fist) in a prohibited place was for a valid purpose, i.e., "not for my own purposes committing some (other) offense." There is also an approach that requires the defendant to prove that he held the knife (or fist) in a prohibited place in good faith and for a proper purpose that justifies holding it despite the prohibition (see: Criminal Appeal Authority 7484/08 Anonymous v. State of Israel (22.12.2009); 10. Front, On Criminal Law, Penal Law, the law in the light of the case law, Part Four, Updated Edition 5766-2006, p. 2106).
- As recalled, during the search of the defendant's body, in respect of which I determined that it had been lawfully conducted, a black drawable knife was seized (see: an action report (P/10) and a search report prepared by Policeman Cohen (P/11), an action report prepared by Officer Sardes (P/8)). A memorandum prepared by Policeman Oshri regarding the examination of the knife on July 21, 2022 (P/42) indicates that it is a folding knife with a fixed blade. A photographic board of the knife was submitted, the length of the knife in the open position is 16 cm, and the length of the blade is about 6.5 cm (P/24).
- The defense does not dispute that the knife was found in the defendant's possession, but rather that it was claimed that the knife was held for a valid purpose. In his testimony, the defendant claimed that he worked in the installation of cages for cardboard recycling and that in order to open cartons he used a knife (pp. 567-577 of the protégé). The defendant's claim regarding possession for a valid purpose is a suppressed version that was not raised by him in his police interrogation, but was argued by him for the first time in his testimony at trial. To this suppressed version, no evidence was brought that the defendant did indeed work in the work he claimed and that he was required to possess a knife that was seized in his possession for the purpose of this work.
Moreover, and this is the main point, even if I adopt the defendant's version that the knife was used as a work tool for him while he was working in the recycling shop, this explanation does not explain why he was carrying the knife in his possession when it was seized. It should be noted that the defendant stated in his testimony that on that day he was working From the morning until he was documented, he returned home and changed his clothes, from black clothes to orange pants, worked in recycling and after Then he changed his clothes because He worked as a messenger (pp. 602, 622 of Prut). As stated, according to the cameras at the defendant's home, he was seen returning to his home at 8 Saharon Street, at 1:58 P.M., wearing the same clothes he had left with at 12:41 P.M. (P/49, P/73), and at 2:16 P.M. he left his house, and went down the staircase, after changing his clothes (a short black shirt and orange shorts), with which he was arrested a few minutes later near the building's warehouse (P/49, P/73).