At the same time, the aforesaid distinction, with regard to the mental element, which does not exclude the respondent's actions from the offense of rape, has, on the other hand, and as my colleague points out in his opinion (paragraph 84), implications for the matter of reducing the respondent's sentence. In this regard, I would like to note, with the necessary caution, that this is a case, in my view, an extenuating circumstance that is weighty."
A.3. Request for Further Hearing and Petition to the High Court of Justice
- On April 6, 2025, the Applicant filed a motion to hold an additional hearing of the judgment given in the appeal, and on May 21, 2025, the Applicant submitted the reasons for the request to hold an additional hearing as aforesaid.
At the heart of the motion for an additional hearing is the argument that when the respondent announced that it was withdrawing its request to convict the applicant of the offenses of fraudulent rape, this court lacked jurisdiction to convict the applicant of these offenses. The Applicant described the Respondent's position of September 26, 2024, as the Respondent's decision to withdraw the appeal, and from this point of view he argued that the judgment was given without authority. It was further argued that the Applicant relied on the State's position, and therefore there was no reason to convict him of the offenses of fraudulent rape.
- On May 22, 2025, the Applicant also filed a petition with this Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, in which he petitioned for the relief of annulment of the judgment given in the appeal (High Court of Justice 57436-05-25).
In the petition as well, the Applicant claimed that when the Respondent announced that it was withdrawing its request to convict the Applicant of the offenses of fraudulent rape, this Court lacked jurisdiction to convict him of these offenses. The Applicant further argued, in addition to and alternatively, that the judgment in the appeal was tainted by extreme unreasonableness, and in this context he argued, also in the framework of the petition, that the Applicant relied on the State's position and refrained from arguing against his conviction for the offenses of rape. The Applicant also claimed that he had suffered a severe miscarriage of justice.
- In accordance with the decision of this Court (Judge Kabub), the Respondent submitted, on June 5, 2025, its preliminary response to the petition.
The Respondent's position, in summary, was that it had indeed withdrawn its request to convict the Applicant of the offenses of fraudulent rape, and that for reasons that are not clear this was not reflected in the judgment given in the appeal.