From this erroneous point of view, the judgment was written as being free from any need to take into account what was proposed at the end of the hearing of September 18, 2024, and the respondent's position in its wake.
- On March 23, 2025, our judgment was handed down on appeal. The main opinion was written by my colleague, Justice Stein, who, after an in-depth discussion, found that the appeal should be accepted and that the applicant should be convicted of fraudulent rape. At the same time, and once the appeal regarding the offenses of fraudulent rape was accepted, my colleague ruled that there was no reason to convict the applicant, using the authority granted in section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Law, of assault as well.
My friend, the judge Y. Elron, gave his consent to what was stated in the judge's opinion א' שטיין, and I did the same: the learned opinion of the judge א' שטיין, convinced me that contrary to my initial opinion (and the rulings of the trial court), and as a matter of law, the applicant can and should be convicted of rape offenses, even though he did not commit the acts for the purpose of sexual stimulation, gratification or humiliation and even did what he did to benefit the two complainants.
At the same time, I expressed the difficulties I saw in the aforementioned result, in the following words:
"I am convinced that the legal determination in my colleague's opinion, regarding the mental element required for the offense of rape, is based in law. At the same time, convicting a person of the offense of rape, with its exceptional severity, without his actions being done for the purpose of sexual stimulation, gratification or humiliation, is not an easy result. It is also possible that there is a place, as a matter of law, to establish in the law different degrees for the offense of rape, in a way that will reflect the distinction between a situation in which the acts are committed for the purpose of sexual stimulation, gratification or humiliation, and acts in which this psychological element does not exist. However, this is not the common law.