Criminal Case (Tel Aviv) 4368-05-16 State of Israel v. Siemens Israel Ltd. - part 117

"The question of the application of protection from justice to a given case requires a three-stage examination: in the first stage, the court must identify the defects that occurred in the proceedings taken in the defendant's case and determine their intensity, regardless of the question of his guilt or innocence.  In the second stage, the court must examine whether the existence of the criminal proceeding, despite the defects, constitutes a severe violation of the sense of justice and fairness.  At this stage, the court is required to balance the various interests, the main ones of which are detailed above, while giving its opinion on the concrete circumstances of the proceeding before it.  In doing so, the court may attribute weight, inter alia, to the severity of the offense attributed to the defendant; the strength of the evidence (prima facie or proven) that establishes his guilt; the personal circumstances of the defendant and the victim of the offense; the extent of the impairment of the defendant's ability to defend himself; the severity of the violation of the defendant's rights and the circumstances that led to its cause; the degree of guilt on the shoulders of the authority that harmed the proceeding or the defendant, as well as the question of whether the authority acted maliciously or in good faith.  It is clear that in formulating the balance between the opposing considerations, the court attributed to each of the considerations the relative weight it deserves in the concrete circumstances of the given case.  Thus, for example, the more serious the offense,  the greater the weight of the public interest in the prosecution, and the more scandalous the act of the authority, and the more severe its harm to the defendant and his rights, the greater the weight of the public interest in preserving the rights of the defendant and restraining the power of the authority.  In the third stage,  when the court is convinced that the existence of the proceeding does indeed involve severe harm to the sense of justice and fairness, it must examine whether the defects discovered cannot be cured by more moderate and proportionate means than by canceling the indictment.  Among other things, the court may determine that the harm caused to the defendant, even though it does not justify the cancellation‑ of the indictment filed against him, justifies the dismissal of specific charges, or will be appropriate to be considered in his favor in determining his sentence, should he be convicted.  The court may also‑determine that the correction of the injury can be done in the framework of the examination of the trial, such as clarifying the question of the admissibility of evidence obtained using improper means."