After the hearing, a decision was made according to which the Respondent must submit its position regarding the cancellation request by July 9, 2025, and the Applicant must respond by July 16, 2025.
- On August 6, 2025, the Respondent submitted its position, in the framework of which it reiterated the sequence of events, which was reviewed above. The Respondent argued that the question at hand relates to the authority of the Appeals Court to convict the Applicant of the sexual offenses of which the Applicant was accused, despite and after the Respondent retracted her request that he be convicted of these offenses.
To the aforesaid question, the respondent answered, in principle, in the affirmative. The Respondent went on to insist that the circumstances of the case at hand are exceptional (mainly because this is not only a conviction for offenses beyond the accuser's arguments, but a conviction after the accuser explicitly retracted her request to convict of those offenses). Finally, the Respondent argued that, in all the circumstances, the judgment in the appeal should be left in place and that the special circumstances of the matter should be taken into account in terms of sentencing the applicant. In this regard, the Respondent announced that: "...In view of the fact that at the end of the day, the appellant's petition for a conviction for the offense of assault remained only, the punishment that accompanies the offense of assault is the highest threshold of punishment that will be considered by the court when it comes to sentencing the respondent".
- 00On August 17, 2025, the Applicant submitted his response. The Applicant described the motion for annulment as one filed pursuant to section 81(b) of the Courts Law, and the Respondent as someone who, in light of her retraction of the motion to convict the Applicant of the offenses of rape and indecent act, is silenced from objecting to the acceptance of the application. The Applicant reiterated that he relied on the State's notice of September 26, 2024 and focused his arguments, moving on to the judgment in the appeal, on the issue of the use of Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Law and not on his conviction for the sexual offenses. The Applicant argued that there is no precedent for a conviction of an offense by an appellate court, in a situation in which the accuser explicitly retracts her request to convict her of the same offense. The applicant argued that the appellate court lacked the authority to do so. The Applicant further argued regarding the miscarriage of justice that was caused to him, which also justifies, according to him, the annulment of the judgment given in the appeal.
0
- On August 21, 2025, the Respondent submitted its response to the Applicant's response and claimed that there was no basis for the claim of estoppel against her. This is for the simple reason that the Respondent did not retract her statement of September 26, 2024, and her return, as part of that notice, requests that the Applicant be convicted of the offenses of rape and indecent act. The Respondent emphasized that her argument is that the court is authorized to leave the judgment in place despite this position. The Respondent further argued that there is no basis for the claim of reliance claimed by the Applicant, since her notice of September 26, 2024, was given after the hearing of the arguments regarding the sexual offenses had been completed. The Respondent claimed that in its notice of September 26, 2024, it did not withdraw the appeal, but rather withdrew its request to convict of certain offenses (sexual offenses) and instead sought to convict him of another offense (assault).
- On August 6, 2025, a response was also submitted on behalf of the two victims of the offense, in which they petitioned that the judgment in the appeal be upheld. The victims of the offense claimed that the respondent should have consulted them, prior to the delivery of her notice of September 26, 2024, and if he had done so, they would have strongly opposed the withdrawal of the motion to convict the applicant of the sexual offenses.
The Respondent responded to the aforementioned response and claimed that its representatives were in contact with the counsel for the victims of the offense and that in any event, since her notice of September 26, 2024 was not made, as far as the Respondent was concerned, as part of an agreement to a plea bargain, there was no obligation to accept the position of the victims of the offense.
- Discussion and Decision
B.1. The Mistake and the Need to Correct It
- At this time, the mishap and the mistake that occurred prior to the judgment in the appeal are clear: at the end of the hearing of the appeal held on September 18, 2024, this court intended to offer the parties an agreed arrangement whereby the respondent would withdraw its request to convict the applicant of the offenses of rape by fraud and indecent act by fraud, and the applicant would agree to his conviction, instead and while the court was making use of the authority granted to it in section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Law, for the offense of assault. This Court further intended to instruct that in the absence of such agreement, the parties shall complete their arguments regarding the use, in the circumstances at hand, of the authority granted to the Court in section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Law.
However, the court's words were understood as a recommendation to the respondent to retract it, unconditionally, seeking to convict the applicant of the offenses of fraud and fraudulent indecent act, and in addition, without conditioning and to the extent that the respondent requests that the authority be exercised according to Article 216 The Criminal Procedure Law for the conviction of the applicant for the offense of assault shall be submitted by the applicant and subsequently by the applicant, the completion of the argument in this matter.