Hapoel further argues in this context that the law requires a restrictive interpretation, when it is not possible to apply a condition given in respect of a certain offense to a conviction in a section of another and more serious offense that was not explicitly included in the conditional sentence.
Hapoel argues against this background that the court was not authorized to apply the suspended sentence (see paragraph 114 of the statement of claim).
- Regarding the deduction of a point from Hapoel's balance sheet due to a conviction for the offense of rioting fans under aggravated circumstances, Hapoel claims that its conviction is based on erroneous factual determinations, and in particular on the erroneous factual claim that the game did not take place at the fault of Hapoel or its fans.
Discussion and Decision
Conditional point reduction
- An examination of Hapoel's arguments on this issue clearly reveals that these are the clearest of appeals, which, as I detailed at length above, the court does not intervene in them, in light of the clear and explicit language of the Sports Law.
- As stated, Hapoel's arguments relate to the matter of the interpretation of sections 22k1, 22k2 and 22k3 of the bylaws in light of the conditional punishment prescribed for the worker, and in particular the issue of whether a conviction in the circumstances enumerated in section 22k1 allows the application of the condition set out in 125674 proceeding.
However, the Supreme Court's rulings on these issues concern the interpretation of the condition and the interpretation of the offenses and circumstances detailed in these sections, an interpretation that is at the heart of the legal and professional discretion of the internal judicial institutions in general and the Supreme Court in particular.
In these circumstances, even if there was an error in the interpretation of the sections, or in the manner in which the suspended sentence was applied, as required by the Sports Law, the Supreme Court's ruling is final, and there is no appeal against it, and it cannot be interfered with.
- In any event, and in order to appease Hapoel, in my opinion, Hapoel's arguments should also be rejected on the merits, when its arguments are inconsistent with the language and purpose of the said sections. The position of the Supreme Court according to which a fan riot in ordinary circumstances constitutes a private case of a fan riot in serious circumstances for the purpose of applying the condition, is logical, clear and consistent with the purpose and objectives of the conditional punishment.
- I will note that the worker, who is apparently aware that this is an appellate claim, argues that it is appropriate to intervene on this issue in the judgment of the Supreme Court since it is a 'deviation from authority', where the cause of deviation from authority is a recognized ground for intervention in a judgment of the Supreme Court.
Indeed, there is no dispute that one of the recognized grounds for intervention, as I have expanded above, is the ground for deviation from authority. However, there is nothing between the worker's arguments regarding the conditional punishment and the cause of deviation from authority.