Another argument made by Adv. Dagan was that the prosecution's request to acquit Defendant 4, Avraham Kalamaro, of the offenses attributed to him in the eighth indictment, is a selective and unlawful enforcement. In this regard, Adv. Dagan argued that the evidentiary situation of defendant 5 is not negatively different from the evidentiary situation with regard to defendant 4. The prosecution justified its request by saying that from the outset, this defendant was attributed participation in conspiracy, but this claim is incorrect because the indictment attributed various activities to him, apart from conspiracy. The prosecution made a false representation regarding his status in the eighth indictment and concealed its intention to request his acquittal during the trial. Adv. Dagan sees this as an abuse of court proceedings and conduct that is in fundamental contradiction with the principles of justice and legal fairness.
In light of the aforesaid, Adv. Dagan seeks to acquit his client on grounds of protection from justice, and this is detached from the hearing on the merits of the matter.
Hearing and Determination of Claims Regarding the Defense of Justice
- In their written summaries, defendants 1, 3, 4 and-5 The argument that the indictment should be quashed or the defendants should be acquitted, without resorting to the charges on their merits, because they have the defense argument known as"Defense from Justice" (Defendant 4 raised arguments that could be classified as a defense of justice, even though he did not title his arguments in this heading). This argument is currently anchored in the section 149(10) Law Criminal Procedure [Consolidated Version], 5742-1982 (hereinafter: "Kindness"P"), which states:
"After the beginning of the trial, the defendant may make preliminary arguments, including:
...
(10) The filing of the indictment or the conduct of the criminal proceedings are in fundamental contradiction to the principles of justice and legal fairness."