If Instructions Sections 81(a) and81(b) The Courts Law does indeed create a negative arrangement regarding the court's authority to amend a judgment, without the consent of all the parties, beyond correcting an "error" as defined In section 81(a) According to the Courts Law, the existence of an "inherent authority" to do so cannot be recognized (and see: Criminal Appeal 2553/15 Hadi v. State of Israel, paragraph 6 of the decision of my colleague Justice א' שטיין [Nevo] (21.07.2025)).
Moreover, there is a reason for legal policy not to recognize the alleged inherent authority: the situation in which litigants are convinced, with all their hearts, that a judgment of this court, which is not to their liking, is based on error, is not at all uncommon. Recognition of the existence of "inherent authority" to accept motions on the basis of which this is the argument is likely to cause the court to be overwhelmed with such requests and to severely harm the principle of the finality of the judgment (and it is doubtful whether the definition of inherent authority as relating only to "exceptional", "rare" and "exceptional" cases will prevent this).
Indeed, the question as to the existence of such inherent authority is an important one, and it will therefore await a decision in the circumstances that will necessitate it.
B.3. The Status of the Victims of the Offense
- In a response submitted on behalf of the victims of the offense, it was argued that the respondent was obligated, prior to sending her notice of September 26, 2024, to update them and subsequently to present their position before the court. The victims of the offense claim that if this had been done, they would have expressed strong opposition to the Applicant's retraction of her request to convict the Applicant of rape by fraud and indecent act by fraud, and the Respondent would have been obligated to inform the court of this.
The Respondent claims, on the other hand, that she held a dialogue with the counsel for the victims of the offense and that since as far as she is concerned, what was on the agenda was not an agreed arrangement but rather a response to the court's request, she was not obligated to update the victims of the offense and to bring their position before the court.