As noted many times in case law, assessing compensation for non-pecuniary damage in general and pain and suffering in particular, including pain and suffering, is a task that raises many difficulties. It was held that:
".. This is a damage that by its very nature has a dominant subjective aspect, which raises inevitable difficulties in its assessment. Ultimately, the amount of compensation in any case, similar to compensation for other non-pecuniary damages, is at the discretion of the court, and will be determined by way of an estimate based on an assessment of the totality of the circumstances of the case, and on the court's impression. The court must adopt, in this matter, a balanced approach. He must give due weight to the fact that this is a violation of a basic right, which requires the determination of appropriate compensation, as opposed to symbolic compensation. At the same time, due to the difficulties inherent in the process of assessing the damage, the court must restrain itself, and not award damages at excessive rates" Civil Appeal 2781/93 Da'aka v. Carmel Hospital, IsrSC 35 (4), 526, 583.
- In our case, as stated, the defendant's conduct towards the plaintiff was fraught with a chain of defects, which establish many wrongs against him, from defamation, to assault and actual sabotage, to unjustified detention.
A review of the case law shows that in general, the courts treat acts of violence by security forces against innocent civilians with great severity. Thus, Other Municipal Applications (Jerusalem) 1311/00 Wajdi v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (December 17, 2000) The District Court intervened in the amount of compensation awarded by the Magistrate's Court for pain and suffering, which awarded ILS 13,000 to a person who was unjustly arrested by police officers, searched and his head slammed against a wall. The District Court increased the compensation awarded by the Magistrate's Court to the sum of ILS 40,000 as of the date of the judgment. This sum in today's values amounts to a total of about ILS 79,000. Needless to say, this is a guiding judgment of the District Court.