Also with regard to the erroneous calculation made by the examiner Vlady, who was in charge of completing the investigation in the case and not on the investigation of the case, does not change the conclusion that the accident occurred in the involved lane due to the defendant's deviation from his lane.
For the meaning of an investigative failure or omission, see, Y. Kedmi, "On the evidence" Part IV (2009 edition), p. 1979, where the following is stated:
"An investigative failure means that due to the negligence of the prosecuting authorities [including the investigative authorities], evidence with exculpatory potential was lost, or an opportunity to exhaust an investigative line that might have been useful to the defendant's defense was missed. The rule is that an investigative failure is attributed to the prosecution's duty. This means that some weight is attached to the possibility that if things had happened differently - evidence would have been obtained, an investigative action would have been taken... and so on - we would have before us proof that strengthens the defendant's version."
See also the Supreme Court's ruling inCriminal Appeal 7477/08, Eitan Gaz v. Israel Police, given on November 14,2011:
"The absence of evidence that stems from the failure of the investigating authority will be attributed to the prosecution's duty when the question arises as to whether it has lifted the burden of proof imposed on it. However, the mere existence of an investigative failure does not mean automatic acquittal of the defendant. The effect of the investigative failure depends on the circumstances of the case, and in particular on the degree of its severity. The focus of the examination is on the question of whether this is such a serious failure that the concern arises that the defendant's defense was deprived in such a way that he had difficulty dealing with the evidence against him."
As mentioned above, with regard to the failure to conduct the test to unload data from the airbag computers of the vehicle involved and the defendant's vehicle, the existence of a failure or failure of the investigation does not naturally establish a reasonable doubt in favor of the defendant.
It has been determined more than once in case law, because interrogation failures may lead to the acquittal of a defendant, but not every omission, or even the accumulation of a number of omissions, will necessarily lead to an acquittal. In fact, the question that the court must ask itself is whether the omissions amount to leaving a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or whether it is such a serious omission that there is a real concern that the defendant's defense has been deprived in such a way that it cannot deal with the evidence that incriminates it (Y. Kedmi, About the Evidence, Part IV (2009), pp. 1979-1986).
IICriminal Appeal 1645/08, Anonymous vs. the State of Israel, given on 03.09.2009, was determined as follows:
"The mere existence of an investigative failure is not sufficient to establish a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant, which results in an acquittal, it is required that it be a material failure that goes to the root of the matter... Indeed: 'Even if investigative failures are found, this fact in itself does not lead to the acquittal of the appellant. The rule is that the prosecution is not obligated to present the best evidence, and it is sufficient to present sufficient evidence. At the end of the day, the question of the effectiveness of investigative failures is decided in accordance with the specific circumstances of the case, while examining the question of whether the evidentiary basis that was laid before the court is sufficient to establish the defendant's conviction of the offense attributed to him to the extent required in criminal cases...".
In the circumstances of the case at hand, I did not find that the alleged investigative failure regarding the failure to produce data from the airbag computer of the vehicles involved amounts to a material investigative failure, nor does it impair the defendant's defense, and that there is an evidentiary fabric in this case to prove the defendant's guilt in causing the accident, a fabric based on a combination of testimonies and objective findings at the scene.