After the Public Defender's response and the accusing response was introduced, I determined in my decision of December 4, 2025, that the request would be heard in the verdict.
It should be said immediately that the claims of failure to represent are to be rejected.
The defendant was represented in the proceeding until the end of the prosecution case by three attorneys - Attorney Tal Avriel, Attorney Boris Sherman and Attorney Yair Nadashi, until he decided to manage his own affairs, despite the court's clarifications regarding the significance of this move. Looking at the proceeding as a whole, it cannot be said that there was a failure in representation - from the beginning of the representation to its end.
As for the claim that he was represented by the Public Defender's Office tainted by a conflict of interest due to the remuneration system that exists in the Public Defender's Office - The defendant wants to say that because the defense attorneys are compensated according to the hearing, they have an interest in prolonging the proceeding, while the proceedings should have ended while he was still in his favor. I reject this argument outright, and it should not have been argued. The distance between the fear raised by the defendant and reality, such as the distance between heaven and earth.
As for the testimony of Pepperstone's representatives, as stated, these witnesses were part of the prosecution's witnesses, but the accuser waived them, thus creating a potential advantage for the defense. In any event, it should be emphasized that a large part of the procedural decisions that were made in the proceeding were made in its status (see, for example, the minutes of the hearing in water, April 12, 2022). Therefore, there is no substance in the defendant's complaint.
As for the defendant's claim that there was room to file a motion to dismiss the indictment, it should be noted that as early as July 17, 2022, the defense filed a motion to cancel the indictment, and a decision was made on August 4, 2022. Moreover, in the detailed response to the indictment, the defense attorney detailed very detailed preliminary arguments.