The Applicant further argued that the judgment in the appeal contains the following :A miscarriage of justice that goes to the root of the proceeding", also due to the aforesaid position of the state and the conviction of the applicant for the offenses of rape afterwards. This, inter alia, is also due to the applicant's reliance on the state's notice and also because of the miscarriage of justice that was caused to him.
The Applicant argued that to the extent that the Respondent's consent to his request is given, the Court is authorized to grant it accordingly Section 81(b) The Courts Law, and to the extent that the Respondent does not give its consent as aforesaid, the Court lacks the authority to make any substantive amendment to the judgment in the appeal.
- On July 1, 2025, a hearing was held before us on the cancellation request.
At the beginning of the hearing, and to the questions of my colleague, the judge Y. ElronCounsel for the Applicant clarified that the court's remarks at the end of the hearing of September 18, 2024 were not understood, in any way, as intended to propose an arrangement to which both parties must agree (p. 2 of the last two lines, and p. 3, lines 3-6 of the transcript).
Later in the hearing, counsel for the respondent clarified that the court's words at the end of the hearing of September 18, 2024 were not understood, even by the respondent, as stipulating a condition between the respondent's retraction of her request to convict the applicant of the offenses of rape and indecent act and a conviction for the offense of assault (using the authority according to Article 216 to the Criminal Procedure Law). Counsel for the respondent clarified, "in Rachel, your little daughter", that the respondent's return to convict the applicant of the offences of rape and the indecent act was not conditional (pp. 6 and 7 of the transcript).
Later in the hearing, the respondent clarified before us that even after it was clarified what this court's intention was in its words at the end of the hearing of September 18, 2024, it does not retract its statement of September 26, 2024, according to which it retracts its request to convict the applicant of the offenses of rape and indecent act (pp. 8-9 of the transcript).