In the circumstances at hand, given the police investigation close to the incident that was suspected of being an attempted murder in a playground, on the outskirts of the city of Tel Aviv at noon, I am of the opinion that the police's actions to locate security cameras and the public interest involved in ensuring the safety and safety of the public and the apprehension of the suspect in the act outweigh the violation of privacy, insofar as there was any such thing in his case, to the extent that citizens were recorded randomly on those cameras, which in itself is quite minimal. Given that the security cameras were already aimed at the public area.
Moreover; I am of the opinion that insofar as the police had acted in the usual way and approached the court to obtain search warrants for the cameras in question, given the circumstances of the case, there is a high probability that such warrants would have been granted, as evidenced by the same search warrant issued by the Magistrate's Court at the end of a hearing held before it ex parte, with respect to the cameras at 15 Sumkan Street, Civil Case and Saharon 8 Civil Case (P/59). Therefore, I am satisfied that the defendant's right to a fair trial has not been violated.
- The second group of considerations It deals with the extent to which the improper means of interrogation affect the evidence obtained. In this context, the extent to which the illegality or unfairness involved in obtaining the evidence may affect the reliability and evidentiary value of the evidence, and whether the illegally obtained evidence has a separate and independent existence from the illegality or unfairness involved in obtaining it.
- In the present case, we are dealing with "objective evidence", which, according to case law, there is usually a weaker connection between its finding and the improper conduct of the police investigators, as opposed to, for example, the confession of a defendant (see: Criminal Appeal 9897/05 Almagor v. State of Israel, para. 11 (23.11.2006)). Therefore, it can be determined that the videos produced from the security cameras have an independent existence whose credibility and independent existence cannot be impaired as evidence, regardless of the illegality of the police action, and that the defect did not affect the credibility of the evidence (Issacharov, para. 71 of the judgment of Justice Beinisch). It should be clarified that the defense did not dispute that there was any disruption or tendentious editing in the content of the videos.
- The third group of considerations It deals with the necessary balance between the effect of the disqualification of evidence on the work of doing justice, while examining the nature of the offense attributed to the defendant and the degree of its severity. In this context, consideration must be given to the question of whether the social cost involved in the disqualification of vision is greater than the social benefit that will arise from it. The main parameters in this regard are the importance of the evidence to prove guilt, the nature of the offense attributed to the defendant and the degree of severity of it.
- The purpose of this group of considerations is to examine the effect that the disqualification of evidence will have on the work of doing justice in the broad sense. When it comes to central and decisive evidence for the prosecution and when the offenses attributed to the defendant are very serious, it is possible that the invalidation of the evidence may harm the conflicting interests related to fighting crime and protecting public safety and the victims of the offense, including potential victims. In these circumstances, the disqualification of evidence will lead to the fact that the person guilty of committing serious offenses will not be held accountable for his actions - a result that in itself is liable to harm the administration of justice and the public's trust in the courts.
"The third group of considerations that may be relevant to deciding the question of the admissibility of unlawfully obtained evidence concerns the effect that the disqualification of the evidence will have on the work of doing justice in the broad sense. The main question that arises in this context is whether the social cost involved in the disqualification of evidence is greater than the possible benefit that will arise from it. The main parameters in this regard are the importance of the evidence to prove guilt, the nature of the offense attributed to the defendant and the degree of severity of it. When it comes to important and decisive evidence for the prosecution and when the offenses attributed to the defendant are very serious, the invalidation of the evidence may unduly harm the conflicting interests related to fighting crime and protecting public safety and the victims of the offense. In these circumstances, the disqualification of evidence will lead to the fact that the person guilty of committing serious offenses will not be held accountable for his actions - a result that in itself may harm the administration of justice and the public's trust in the courts" (Issacharov, v. 72).