[...]
Let's put it this way, it's not a judgment that will be nominated for a literature prize. But from a legal point of view, we know how to extract from the judgment what we need to take out of the judgment, and there is a very, very explicit statement that he [the respondent here] deviated, your client deviated from what a gynecologist is supposed to do, again there is a significant deviation and deviation, also in Carmel's case. There are three judges [of the District Court].
[...]
Madam should take seriously the question of section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Law, assault. There is no choice but to relate to this matter as well" (emphasis added - A.S.).
Following these remarks, the presiding judge, my colleague, the judge Elronto the counsel for both parties, the State and the Respondent, in the following words:
"Look if we can ... [Counsel for the Respondent] may also relate in writing to the subject of what my colleague Justice Stein said. [...] Your position is clear. The question is that in the overall system, there is a problem here, it is clear that there are problems. ... This bag can fall one way or the other. ... That's the point, I'm not expressing an opinion right now, I'm just presenting something.
[...]
We'll do that before we finish [the discussion]. [...] We don't want [the state's attorney - A.S.] to do it on one foot. We will give her a few days to consult and inform us of their position, of course we do not express a position on this matter. So as not to create a situation here that we have said one way or another. [...] It doesn't mean that it's the required result or that it's the result of the lineup or the opinion of the entire lineup. [...] We will also give the option if you would like to address the matter and if not, if they really consider it? ... So everything will be open, including the matter of what the members of the city are talking about 216, but we will give the lady a few days to address" (emphasis added).
In conclusion, I said to the State's counsel: