My colleague, the judge, too. Y. Elronnoted this, during the hearing that took place before us on July 1, 2025, noting that:
"Adv. Skopsky: First there is a ruling, now the question is what to do with the ruling. I think that facts were discovered to the court as well, the court's assumption was that this was a condition between the parties and that if the other side did not agree, then in fact its position the state has no validity.
The Honorable Justice Y. Elron: Unequivocally. That is why we expressed the position as we expressed it" (emphasis added - 10:20).
- It should be emphasized that between the two situations: the state of affairs that the court thought was correct, at the time the judgment in the appeal was written and signed; and the state of affairs as it actually was, there is a dramatic difference, the dispute about its ramifications is at the center of the hearing of the present application.
I will clarify: one situation is when a court proposes a compromise proposal in which one party waives its position (in the circumstances of the present case, a waiver by the respondent of its request to convict the respondent of rape), against a waiver by the opposing party of its position (in the circumstances of the present case, a waiver by the applicant of his absolute acquittal, as ruled by the trial court), and an agreement on an outcome that constitutes a compromise between the two positions (in the circumstances of the present case, Conviction of the Applicant for assault). Subsequently, one party agrees to the compromise proposal (in the circumstances of the present case, the Respondent) while the other party refuses it (in the circumstances at hand, the Applicant).
In this situation, not only is the court not bound by the position of the party that agreed to the compromise (in the circumstances of the present case, the respondent's willingness, for the purpose of a compromise proposal, to retract it seeking to convict the applicant of rape), but in the event that the compromise offer falls (due to the applicant's disagreement), the court is obligated to ignore the same willingness of the party to which he agreed.