Criminal Appeal Sentence (Haifa) 25795-01-15 Edward Marcus v. State of Israel (26 February 2015) in which the Magistrate's Court convicted the defendant after administering evidence of the offense of recklessness and negligence with a firearm after he received a permit to hunt pigs. While sitting in ambush, the complainant walked towards his car on a dirt path. The appellant, who thought it was a herd of pigs, fired at him without verifying that it was indeed pigs and hit the complainant. As a result of the shooting, the complainant was injured in the thigh and right knee, was hospitalized for a long period of time and underwent several surgeries. The Magistrate's Court sentenced him to 6 months in prison with community service, conditional imprisonment and compensation. The District Court accepted the defendant's appeal and overturned the conviction after finding and determining that the conviction would cause real harm to his livelihood and rehabilitation, given his age and lack of a criminal record.
Criminal Case (Nazareth District) 1085/05 State of Israel v. Gadir (23 March 2006) in which the court ordered the termination of a non-conviction proceeding in the case of a defendant who was a Border Police officer who was holding a long weapon at a bus station, with a magazine in his entrance, suddenly a bullet was released that penetrated the complainant's abdomen, causing him internal injuries and a fracture in his pelvis, he lost consciousness and required medical treatment that included two surgeries and hospitalization for two weeks, taking into account the circumstances of the commission of the offense and the circumstances of the defendant.
The Suissa case, in which the court ordered the end of the proceedings without conviction in the case of an officer with the rank of chief officer who was one of the commanders of a demonstration event in Tel Aviv, during which there were disturbances and riots by some of the demonstrators who threw objects at the police and even breached the checkpoints. Following on from the above, many demonstrators were injured by stun grenades and some suffered injuries to their bodies. During the demonstration, the defendant threw a stun grenade, in an arched shape, at a gathering place of demonstrators, the defendant threw the grenade at the crowd, when the large crowd in which the demonstrators stood and their frequent movement from place to place, prevented the possibility of properly assessing the place where the grenade landed, contrary to the instructions. As a result of the above, two female demonstrators suffered injuries that required medical treatment, and one of them was diagnosed with PTSD. The court ordered the cancellation of the conviction, even without the need to receive a briefing, after finding that both conditions were met in accordance with the written rule - in terms of the type and nature of the offense, as it is a negligence offense with a lower degree of criminal culpability in the absence of criminal intent, and despite its location in the highest level of severity among the negligence offenses - it is possible to overturn the conviction of a defendant convicted of committing this offense, and ruled that the circumstances of the commission of the offense are not at a high level of severity, despite the determination that he used a stun grenade that is an explosive and special substance Yes, although an alternative declaratory judgment could have been used, taking into account that this is an operational event, in which the defendant is under physical and mental pressure, working for a long time when the need for decision-making increases the chance of mistakes, the behavior of the demonstrators who put the policemen in danger of harm, the throwing of the grenade was carried out with authority and the negligence is the manner in which he carried out the throwing, a single grenade, momentary negligence, without malicious intent, the fact that this is an offense that does not include an element of sabotage in its definition. The court also found the existence of concrete harm to the defendant in the form of a fear of delaying the defendant's promotion for a number of years, when the manner of termination of the proceeding is a real consideration in the hands of the competent body for promotion. Taking into account his additional personal circumstances, including his contribution and service up to that event, including damage to his image, damage to his promotion, the conviction can be a consideration regarding the question of the defendant's continued employment. The defendant was charged with an obligation and compensation. The judgment is not final. An appeal has not yet been filed.