Enforcement

The Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice

HCJ 3368/10

HCJ 4057/10

 

Before:                                                The Honorable Justice E. Arbel                                                                                  The Honorable Justice I. Amit                                                                                    The Honorable Justice U. Shoham

 

The Petitioners in HCJ 3368/10:   1.   The Ministry of Palestinian Prisoners

                                                      2.   Adv. Fahmi Shakirat

                                                      3.   Adv. Kamil Sabbagh

                                                      4.   Adv. Kareem Ajwa

 

The Petitioners in HCJ 4057/10    The Association for Civil Rights et al.

 

v.

 

The Respondent in HCJ 3368/10: 1.   The Minister of Defense

 

The Respondent in HCJ 3368/10

and in HCJ 4057/10                      2.   GOC Central Command, Commander of IDF Forces in the Region

 

                                                                        Petition to Grant an Order Nisi

 

Date of Session:                                           14^th of Sivan, 5773 (May 23, 2013)

 

On behalf of the Petitioners

in HCJ 3368/10:                            Adv. S. Ben Natan

 

On behalf of the Petitioners

in HCJ 4057/10:                            Adv. L. Margalit

 

On behalf of the Respondents:     Adv. A. Helman

 

P A R T I A L   J U D G M E N T

 

Justice E. Arbel:

 

The Petitions before us, the hearings of which were united, address the question why not shorten the periods of detention which are prescribed in the security legislation in the Judea and Samaria region, including in the Order Regarding Security Provisions [Consolidated Version] (Judea and Samaria) (no. 1651), 5770-2009 (hereinafter: the "Security Provisions Order" or the "Order"), which came into effect on May 2, 2010. In the framework of the Petitions, this Court was requested to determine periods of detention which shall be shorter than those determined in the Security Provisions Order, as required under international law and in a manner that corresponds with the periods of detention that are customary in Israel.

 

 

Background

 

1. Petitioner 1 in HCJ 3368/10 is the Ministry of Prisoners' Affairs in the Palestinian Authority, to which, under the security legislation, most of the detainees belong, and which attends to their welfare, their families, their legal representation and which engages lawyers who are members of the Israel and Palestinian Bar Associations. Petitioners 2-4 are lawyers who represent, on behalf of the Ministry of Prisoners' Affairs, suspects who are detainees under the security legislation. The Petitioners in HCJ 4057/10 are the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, "Yesh Din" – Volunteers for Human Rights and the Public Committee against Torture in Israel.

 

2. The Petitioners filed their Petitions in light of the legal reality that existed at the time the Petitions were filed, pursuant to which the law applicable to Israeli citizens in the Judea and Samaria region (hereinafter: the "Region"), is different than the law applicable to Palestinians in the Region. In the framework of the Petitions, the said Petitioners requested to shorten the periods of detention prescribed in the Security Provisions Order such that they will be the equivalent to the periods applicable to Israeli citizens in the Region and will correspond to the periods of detention that are customary in Israel.

 

The Law that was in Effect at the Time the Petitions were Filed

 

3. The period of the pre-indictment detention and the period of detention until the end of proceedings are grounded in Article C of Chapter C of the Security Provisions Order, which addresses the arrest and release of Palestinian detainees in the Region. Sections 31 and 32 of the Security Provisions Order prescribed the following with respect to detention prior to judicial review:

 

"31.   (a) A soldier may arrest, without an arrest warrant, any person violating the provisions of this order or if there is cause to suspect that he committed an offense under this order.

(b) A person arrested in accordance with sub-section (a) shall be transferred as soon as possible to a police station or place of detention as determined in this order.

(c)   An arrest warrant against a person arrested in accordance with sub-section (a) must be received within a reasonable time; if an arrest warrant is not given within 96 hours from the time of his arrest - he shall be released.

(d) The Commander of the IDF Forces in the Region may authorize any person to order the release of a person arrested in accordance with sub-section (a), provided that no arrest warrant pursuant to the provisions of this article was issued against such detainee.

 

32.     (a)   A police officer who has reasonable grounds to assume that a person violated the provisions of this order or who becomes aware that the investigation material that was gathered against the person who was arrested in accordance with sub-section 31(a) necessitates his continued detention, is authorized to issue a written arrest warrant for a period which shall not exceed eight days from the time of his arrest.

(b)   If an arrest warrant as noted was issued for a period shorter than eight days from the time of his arrest, a police officer may extend it in writing, from time to time, provided that the total periods of detention shall not exceed eight days from the time of his arrest."

 

With respect to the extension of the detention prior to the filing of an indictment, Sections 37 and 38 of the Security Provisions Order prescribe as follows:

 

"37.   A judge is authorized to grant an arrest warrant and to extend the duration of the detention, provided that the arrest warrant or the detention extension shall not be for a period exceeding thirty days at a time and that the total period of detention in accordance with this section shall not exceed ninety days.

 

38.     A Military Court of Appeals judge, may, at the request of the Region's legal counsel, order the extension of the detention of a person who was arrested under Section 37, or his renewed arrest, for a period which shall not exceed three months; if such an arrest warrant is granted for a period of less than three months, a Military Court of Appeals judge may extend it from time to time, provided that the total period of detention in accordance with this section shall not exceed three months."

 

With respect to the period of detention until the end of proceedings, Section 44 of the Security Provisions Order provides as follows:

 

"44.   The matter of a defendant who after being indicted was held under detention for the same indictment for a cumulative period that amounted to two years and whose trial in the court of first instance did not end with a verdict, shall be brought before a judge of the Military Court of Appeals.

The judge will hear the defendant's matter and order his release, conditionally or unconditionally, unless the judge believed that the circumstances of the matter, including the severity of the offense attributed to the defendant and his level of dangerousness, the fear of him fleeing justice and the reasons for the prolonging of proceedings, do not justify his release.

(b)   If the judge decides that the circumstances of the matter do not justify the defendant's release, the judge may instruct the defendant's continued detention for a period which shall not exceed six months, and may reorder this from time to time."

 

In accordance with that which is stated above, at the time the Petitions were filed with this Court, a suspect who was arrested under the Security Provisions Order could have been held under detention up to eight days without judicial review, up to 90 days before the filing of an indictment, and with court approval – up to six months. Additionally, a defendant could have, before his trial was completed, been held under open ended detention, subject to periodic extensions every six month, after two years from the commencement of his detention.

 

4.As opposed to the detention periods applicable to Palestinians in the Region, which are listed in the Security Provision Order, Israeli law prescribes detention for citizens of up to 24 hours (which can be extended up to 48 hours) until being brought before judicial review, detention of up to 30 days, which can be extended up to 75 days with the Attorney General's approval, before filing of an indictment, and detention of nine months, which can be periodically extended every three months, until the end of proceedings (Sections 17, 29, 30, 59, 60, 61 and 62 of the Criminal Procedure (Enforcement Powers – Arrests) Law, 5756-1996). Additionally, certain exceptions are prescribed in the Israeli law with respect to suspects who are arrested for security offenses and with respect to minors who have been arrested (Criminal Procedure (Arrest of a Security Offense Suspect (Temporary Provision) Law, 5766-2006 and the Youth (Adjudication, Punishment and Methods of Treatment) Law 5731-1971).

 

The Claims of the Petitioners in HCJ 3368/10

 

5.The Petitioners claim, through Adv. Smadar Ben Natan, that the periods of detention prescribed in the Security Provisions Order that applies to the Palestinians in the Region are significantly longer than the standards prescribed for such matters both in international law and in the corresponding periods in Israel. They claim that these periods infringe the right to due process and the protection against arbitrary infringement of liberty which are granted to the residents of the Region, both by virtue of international law and by virtue of the fundamental principles of Israeli law. According to the Petitioners, although at hand are two different regions that are subject to different legal regimes, however both are under the control of the State of Israel.

 

6.The Petitioners further claim that the far-reaching changes that have occurred in Israeli law have hardly been reflected in the military legislation in the Region. They claim that experience shows that the extended periods of detention impact the manner in which arrest and interrogation procedures are conducted, such that they excessively infringe detainees' rights: de facto, the detention of detainees who are arrested in an initial arrest, is not requested to be extended before the lapse of the eight days allowed by the Security Provisions Order; many of them are not interrogated at all during entire days of this detention period and during subsequent detention periods; in many cases, detainees are released after four, five or even eight days without procedures being taken with respect thereto and without a cause of arrest against them being examined by a judge. According to the Petitioners, such an extended period of detention creates fertile ground for inappropriate treatment, for pressure and violence in the interrogation, such as the arrest of a relative without any real cause as a means of pressure.

 

7.The Petitioners add that the proceedings at the Military Courts after the filing of an indictment, are conducted ponderously: Most of the cases end with plea bargains since defendants know that if they chose to conduct a trial, they will stay in detention for a long and unlimited period of time; in the few cases that do go to trial, the periods of time between hearings are extended, the number of judges is small in relation to the volume of the cases, and this reality is created and encouraged by the unlimited detention until the end of proceedings.

 

8.The Petitioners further state that until the implementation of the Disengagement Plan, detainees from the Gaza Strip were subject to the provisions of the Security Provisions Order and that since the Disengagement detainees from the Gaza Strip are brought for detention extensions before the Israeli Courts, subject to Israeli law. According to them, the Israeli law also applies to the population of the settlers. According to the Petitioners, this reality constitutes a violation of equality among people – a legal apartheid. The Petitioners emphasize that not all of the offenses addressed in the Military Courts are security offenses, but the laws of detention apply to all of the detainees.

 

9.According to the Petitioners, the judicial review in the detention proceedings is an integral part of the suspect's right to due process. The very lengthy periods of detention are not justified due to security needs or due to circumstances that are unique to the Region. Therefore, they claim, there is a duty to act in accordance with similar standards in protecting human rights in the procedural criminal proceeding and they request to cancel Sections 31A, 32 and 44 of the Security Provisions Order, to shorten the periods of detention and to determine periods of detention that correspond to those that are customary in Israel.

 

The Claims of the Petitioners in HCJ 4057/10

 

10.These Petitioners, through Adv. Lila Margalit, also requested to amend the Security Provisions Order and they raise similar claims against the periods of detention prescribed in the Order. They claim that the periods of detention severely and gravely infringe the fundamental rights of the Palestinian residents of the Region, their right to liberty and their right to be free of arbitrary arrest, as well as their right to due process, dignity and equality, to appropriate means of supervision in order to ensure fair interrogation and in order to prevent torture. These detainees are subject, so they argue, to illegitimate methods of interrogation and to improper treatment on behalf of the interrogation authorities. These infringements derive, according to the Petitioners, both from the fact that their treatment is arbitrarily different than the treatment of Israelis living in the Region and from the duration of the periods of detention which in and of themselves are exaggerated. According to the Petitioners, these infringements are contrary to the provisions of the customary and contractual international law applicable in the Region and to the principles of Israeli public law which apply to Israeli authorities. They argue that these infringements do not serve an appropriate purpose, are not proportionate and are not reasonable. According to the Petitioners' opinion, it is hard to describe a more severe and grave infringement of human rights than the illegitimate situation in which two "categories" of people who are distinguished from each other based on their national origin, are living beside each other. Even regardless of the discrimination allegation, the Petitioners claim that the periods of detention in the Security Provisions Order are contrary to the principles of international law which apply to the Region and to the principles of public law that apply to any action of Israeli authorities. According to them, immediate and frequent judicial review of the detention of a suspect is a necessary condition of its reasonableness and proportionality; an extended detention without judicial review is not proportionate.

 

11.The Petitioners add that the military prosecution's claim that the judicial review of the detention is to be delayed in order to enable the "formulation of a reasonable suspicion", attests that the Order is used for making arbitrary arrests, without there being a reasonable suspicion against the detainee. Therefore, the Petitioners claim that the initial detention period of Palestinian detainees is meant to enable arresting people without there being a reasonable suspicion against them; to protect the interrogation authorities from the court's "intervention", to grant the interrogators "minimal time" to exhaust the interrogation, to avoid the "disturbance" thereof that is involved in presenting the suspect before the judge, and to avoid the logistical difficulties involved in applying immediate judicial review.

 

12.According to the Petitioners, the lack of distinction between minors and adults in the security legislation regarding the periods of detention and the lack of sufficient consideration of the principle of the child's best interest during arrests of minors, result in a disproportionate infringement of children's rights which are grounded in international law and which are recognized by Israeli Law. The basic premises that Palestinian minors are worthy of less protection than Israeli minors also living in the Region, is, in their opinion, illegitimate.

 

13.The Petitioners add that the judicial review of the detention is meant to ensure the justification, from the outset, of the continued denial of a person's liberty and that there is no place to delay it in order to enable the authorities to progress with their interrogation. Additionally, judicial review also has a role in supervising the manner the interrogation is conducted and serves as an important guarantee against the application of illegitimate means of pressure during interrogation and against the use of the detention itself to make the suspect feel completely disconnected from the outside world and subject to the mercy of his interrogators, while his dignity and his right to be silent are being infringed. According to the Petitioners, interrogation that is far from the court's watchful eye, could lead to the use of illegitimate means of interrogation which violate the detainee's dignity and even the integrity of his body, and therefore, in their opinion, constitutes a breach of the State's duty to prevent torture and inhumane treatment of detainees. The lack of judicial supervision is even more severely significant in cases in which the Palestinian detainee is prohibited from meeting with a lawyer, contrary to international law. According to the Petitioners, the concern regarding the use of illegitimate means of interrogation against Palestinians is not a  mere concern, and they refer to reports that were published by human rights organizations in 2007. According to them, purely logistic considerations or administrative difficulties cannot justify the infringement of a human's right to liberty, equality and dignity.

 

The Respondents' Response

 

14.The Respondents' response was presented by Adv. Aner Helman. Even since the letters of response to the Petitioners' approaches, prior to the filing of the Petition, the Respondents stated that the issue of shortening the periods of detention in the Region is being examined in the framework of in-depth staff work that has commenced long ago. It was further written that the security legislation is based on security and public order considerations and this is also true with respect the laws of detention, and that the differences between the law customary in the Region and the law customary in the State of Israel in this context derive from relevant security considerations.

 

15.In the response which was filed on the Respondents' behalf to this Court on January 9, 2010, the Respondents reiterated their claim that it is not for no reason that the periods of detention prescribed in the Security Provisions Order are different than those prescribed in Israeli law. According to the Respondents, the nature of an area that is held under belligerent occupation (occupatio bellica), even if long-term occupation, necessitates that the special security conditions prevailing therein dictate that different arrangements be prescribed than those customary in the occupying state.

 

16.For example, due to the security situation, the ability to move in the Region is limited, and at times, in light of security conditions which delay or prevent reaching the location, it is not possible to perform interrogations expeditiously, or even at all, in the area; some of the areas of the Region are under Palestinian control and it is not possible or very difficult to reach witnesses and suspects living there; in many cases, suspects who need to be interrogated find shelter in areas that are under Palestinian control making their interrogations and the interrogations of their accomplices who were arrested by the security forces, difficult; in most of the cases, the potential witnesses refuse to cooperate with the security forces, making interrogations difficult; in security interrogations the persons being interrogated acted out of nationalist and ideological motivation, and their interrogation is very difficult. Naturally, there is a minimal period of time that is required until their interrogations will produce initial evidence to support the intelligence information that has been received. At times, a certain interval is required between the time information is received and the time it can be used against the party being interrogated, since using intelligence information very soon after its receipt could "burn" the source of information and at times could even risk his life; in a large share of the security interrogations it is not possible to determine the location and time of the arrest in advance, resulting in the delay of the initial interrogation and it being more difficult; all of the detainees who are suspected of committing severe security offenses are transferred to one of four interrogation facilities which are located in Israel for their interrogation. At times, such transfer, in and of itself, requires not insignificant amounts of time. It is also necessary to exhaust the initial interrogation of the person being interrogated before bringing him before a judge, so as to avoid the possibility of him escaping to the Region; at times it is necessary to arrest many hundreds of people, like for example during the period of the "Defensive Shield" operation in 2002, and it is not possible to prepare to bring all of them before a judge during a short period of time.

 

17.The Respondents argue that these grounds require determining that it is appropriate to allow detaining a suspect for a reasonable period of time that is required in order to formulate initial evidentiary material prior to bringing him before a judge. The Respondents further state that international law does not limit the number of days that a person may be detained without judicial involvement, but rather expresses a principle pursuant to which the decision regarding the detention should be brought to a judge without delay.

 

18.Having said that, the Respondents notified that in recent years staff work has been conducted in the IDF and further on in the Ministry of Justice, by the Deputy Attorney General (Criminal Matters), together with the Deputy Attorney General (Special Assignments) and the Deputy Attorney General (Consultation), which is meant to examine the possibility of shortening the maximum periods of detention in the Region. The Respondents updated that in the framework of the staff work, a decision was reached that, considering the current security situation, at this time, it is possible to significantly shorten the maximum period of detention until bringing a detainee before a judge, however it is not appropriate to make the arrangement which shall be applicable in the Region in this matter the same as the arrangement which is applicable in Israel. The Respondents specified the manner of shortening the periods of detention:

 

19.With respect to offenses that are not security offenses, it was decided that, as a rule, the authority of an initial detention until presentation before a judge shall be for 48 hours; additionally, it will be possible to delay the presentation of the detainee before a judge for an additional 48 hours, as per the decision of an administrative authority, if there is a special cause, such as, for example, urgent acts of interrogation. It was further decided that the arrangement shall be re-examined upon the lapse of two years from the effective date of the amendment of the Order. As for detainees of security offenses, it was decided that the rule that shall be prescribed is that the initial period of detention until presentation before a judge shall be 96 hours at most, with an administrative party being able to extend such period by 48 additional hours, in cases in which the Head of the Interrogation Department at the Israel Security Agency is convinced that interrupting the interrogation in order to bring a detainee before a judge could result in substantially prejudicing the interrogation. It was also decided that in very special circumstances it will be possible for an administrative party to extend the period of detention until being brought before a judge by 48 additional hours, beyond the above said 11(sic.) hours (six days), in cases in which the head of the Interrogation Division at the Israel Security Agency is convinced that interrupting the interrogation in order to bring a detainee before a judge could result in harming the performance of an essential act of interrogation that is meant to prevent harm in human lives. Considering the concern that was raised by security entities regarding the operational implications of these modifications, it was determined that this arrangement would be examined upon the lapse of two years from the date the amendment to the Order became effective.

 

20.It was further decided that the extension of an initial detention by a judge will not exceed 20 days and that it will be possible to re-extend the detention for additional periods which shall not exceed 15 additional days each. The extension of detention prior to the filing of an indictment which exceed 60 days shall be subject to the approval of a senior legal authority in the Region.

 

21.The Respondents added that in the framework of the staff work it was decided to add a provision to the Order pursuant to which if a person was arrested and his interrogation ended he shall be released from detention, however, if the prosecutor declared that they are about to file an indictment against him and the court was convinced that there is prima facie cause to request his detention until the end of proceedings, the judge may extend the detention on this  ground for a period which shall not exceed eight days. It was also decided that at the initial stage the period of detention until the beginning of trial shall be 60 days, and that the possibility of shortening this period to 30 days shall be examined upon the lapse of two years.

 

22.The Respondents further updated that it was decided to amend Section 44 of the Security Provisions Order so that with respect to offenses that are not security offenses, the period stated for holding the first hearing before a judge in the matter of a detainee who is under detention until the end of proceedings shall be one year from the date the indictment was filed. With respect to security offenses, the period currently stated in the Order – two years – shall remain in effect, and this matter shall also be examined upon the lapse of two years from the time the arrangement shall become effective. The Respondents estimated that the required adjustments to the modifications shall last approximately six to nine months and that the Order shall be amended accordingly, immediately thereafter.

 

23.The Respondents requested to dismiss in limine the relief requested in HCJ 4057/10 to make the periods of detention of minors in the Region the same as the periods of detention of minors in Israel, and claimed that the Petitioners did not exhaust the proceedings in this matter. According to them, this matter should not be mixed with the matter of the detention of adults in the Region. According to the Respondents this is a "premature petition" since it was already decided to conduct staff work on this matter as well.

 

Hearing of the Petititons and Update Notice

 

24.On January 12, 2011, a hearing took place in this Court before President D. Beinisch and Justices N. Hendel and I. Amit. At the end of the hearing it was decided that within five months the Respondents would file an update notice together with a draft of the Order which shall be issued in accordance with the principles that were formulated. The Bench of Judges even instructed the Respondents to consider its remarks when drafting the Order, especially with respect to the duration of the period of time until first bringing a detainee before a judge and with respect to the period of detention until the end of proceedings after an indictment has been filed.

 

25.On June 1, 2011, the Respondents filed an update notice, and according thereto, in an additional meeting that was held following the court hearing, it was decided to shorten the period until a detainee, who is detained until the end of proceedings for security offense, is brought before a judge, from two years to 18 months. It was further decided that it is vital that the manner of the actual implementation of the arrangement which the staff work decided upon with respect to the maximum period of detention until bringing a suspect before a judge, be examined for a period of approximately two years, before an additional re-examination of the matter. In the framework of this notice, the Respondents added that it is essential, prior to actually shortening the detention periods in the Region, to examine the developments that were scheduled to occur in the Region in September 2011 onwards, in light of the Palestinian Authority's notice that it intends to approach the United Nations General Assembly this month with a request to recognize the "State of Palestine". The Respondents updated that the staff work has not yet been completed and that they expect the Order to be amended during the month of January, 2012.

 

26.Both the Petitioners in HCJ 3368/10 and the Petitioners in HCJ 4057/10 responded to that stated in the update notice. According to them, the shortening of the detention period that the Respondents declared is insignificant and cannot cure the severe defects and infringement of rights that are embodied in the security legislation in the Region. According to the Petitioners, the changes that were made shall not have any practical impact on the arrest procedures of Palestinians who are residents of the Region and will not lead to a significant tightening of the judicial supervision of the periods of detention and to an improvement in the infringement of the right to liberty, of due process and of the presumption of innocence. The Petitioners reiterated their claim that judicial review is an integral part of the arrest process and that there is no justification to delay the judicial review for such an extended period of time. They argued that the initial detention period and the detention until the end of proceedings period constitute an arbitrary infringement of the right to liberty and therefore they insist on their petitions to issue an order nisi in the Petitions and to instruct the Military Commander in the Region to determine periods of detention that correspond with international standards and with those that are customary in Israel. The Petitioners further claimed that there is no reason not to amend the Order due to uncertain future developments.

 

27.The Petitioners in HCJ 4057/10 added that the list of security offenses that is included in the Order spans over dozens of sections and includes offenses such as conducting a procession or an unlicensed meeting, waving a flag without a permit, printing "material which has political significance" without a license from the Military Commander, and the like. The list also includes many "public order" offenses such as throwing objects, disturbing a soldier, breaching curfew or a closed military zone order and the like, thus making the arrangement that relates to offenses that are not security offenses predominantly theoretical. In their opinion, the appropriate criterion for determining the periods of detention is the timeframe applicable to Israelis who also live in the Region. The Petitioners also drew attention to the inconsistencies between the Respondents' notice and the draft of the Order. According to them, the amendment of the Order should not be avoided due to a concern regarding unusual events.

 

Additional Update Notices

 

28.On November 22, 2011, the Respondents filed an additional update notice,  according to which, it was told in meetings that were held at the Deputy Attorney General (Criminal Matters), that the IDF has completed the staff work examining adding the necessary staff positions at the military courts and at the Judea and Samaria Region Prosecution in order to shorten the detention period in the Region and that a decision was even already reached to add the new necessary staff positions, subject to the amendment to the Order becoming effective and to the time required for the procedure of selecting and appointing new judges to the court. It was also clarified that due to a dispute between the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Public Security regarding the source of the budget, there is still no budgetary solution for the Police and Prison Service's needs for implementing the staff work and that a few additional months shall be required after such a solution is found in order to recruit and train personnel and purchase and receive additional vehicles. On December 22, 2011, the Respondents filed an additional update notice informing that the dispute regarding the budget source was still unresolved, and this is what they informed on January 16, 2012, as well.

 

29.On February 6, 2012, the Respondents filed an additional update notice that the budget dispute regarding financing the detention periods in the Region was resolved. The Respondents further updated that on December 2, 2012 (sic.), the Commander of the IDF Forces in the Region signed the Security Provisions Order (Amendment no. 16) (Judea and Samaria) (no. 1685) 5772-2012 (hereinafter: the "Amending Order"), which shortened the period of detention in the Region in accordance with the conclusions of the staff work that had been done, and prescribed that its provisions shall become effective gradually, such that the last changes shall become effective on August 1, 2012.

 

The Petitioners' Response

 

30.The Petitioners in HCJ 3368/10 welcomed the amendments made to the Amending Order. However they claimed that a review of the language of the Amending Order reveals that there are significant differences between the changes declared in the Respondents' response and the actual language of the Amending Order. For example, the Petitioners noted that a security offenses detainee can be held under detention for two periods of 96 hours, i.e. eight days, and only be brought before a judge upon the completion thereof, and the same is true in the case of a non-security offenses detainee. The Petitioners claimed that the shortening of the detention period that was applied is insignificant and does not cure the severe infringement of the detainees' rights under the security legislation in the Region. They claimed that in the case of security offenses, which are the majority of the offenses that are addressed in the Region, the Amending Order does not, in effect, shorten the period of detention before initial judicial review. The Petitioners added that the Amending Order shortens the period of detention until the end of proceedings in security offenses in an insignificant manner from two years to a year and a half, which can be extended indefinitely, and that no change was made with respect to minors and that there is no distinction between a minor and an adult with respect to the detention laws. According to the Petitioners, these changes shall hardly have any practical impact on the procedures of detaining the Region's residents and will not lead to a significant tightening of the judicial supervision of the periods of detention and to an improvement with respect to the infringement of the right to liberty, the right to due process and the presumption of innocence. The Petitioners mentioned with respect to the initial detention period, that judicial review is an integral part of the arrest process and that this is the stage where it is necessary to present the court with only reasonable suspicion which is meant to exist upon the actual arrest. Therefore, in their opinion, there is no justification for delaying the judicial review for such a long period.  Interrogation difficulties should be presented before the judge to justify the extension of the detention, including in security offenses.

 

31.The Petitioners further claimed that the European Court of Human Rights ruled that an initial detention period of four days without judicial review breaches the right to be free of arbitrary detention. Therefore they are of the opinion that a period of detention of four to eight days before judicial review constitutes an arbitrary infringement of the right to liberty in violation of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, and is illegal. According to them, a period of detention of a year and a half infringes the defendant's presumption of innocence and constitutes an arbitrary infringement of his right to liberty, since it is based only on prima facie evidence and amounts to an infringement of his right to a fair trial, as it constitutes a negative incentive to conduct trials and examine the charge.

 

32.The Petitioners in HCJ 4057/12 also responded to the Respondents' update notice. They also welcomed the Respondents' notice regarding the amendments made to the Amending Order but claimed that they cannot cure the flaw of illegality embedded therein, since even after the amendment, the Palestinian residents of the Region will continue to be subject to exaggerated and discriminating periods of detention which severely infringe their rights. The Petitioners emphasized again that immediate and frequent judicial review of arrest for interrogation purposes is a necessary condition for the reasonableness, proportionality and legality of the detention and that in the absence thereof, it is not possible to prevent arbitrary detention, it is not possible to protect the rights of the suspect and it is not possible to ensure a fair criminal procedure. The Petitioners reiterated their argument that an arrest that is not arbitrary is meant, to begin with, to be based on a reasonable suspicion and that the judicial review constitutes a part of the formulation of the legality thereof. According to them, the special difficulties that characterize the interrogations in the Territories are not at all relevant to examining the legality of the arrest to begin with, and therefore should have no implication on the amount of time until first bringing a detainee before a judge. According to the Petitioners, the Respondents did not provide grounds which could justify the discriminating policy also with respect to the other periods of detention. The Petitioners stated that the Respondents did not refer to minors in their notice and according to them, the list of security offenses is still "all inclusive", and a situation in which an Israeli detainee who lives in the Region and is suspected of a security offense must be brought before a judge within 24 hours while a Palestinian must be brought before a judge only after an a-priori period of four days, cannot be justified.

 

In light of President D. Beinisch's retirement, President A. Grunis appointed me to hear the Petition on March 14, 2012.

 

Additional Hearing of the Petition

 

33.On April 23, 2012, we held an additional hearing of the Petition, in which the Petitioners presented their claims regarding four matters: the time until bringing a detainee before a judge, the detention of minors, the definition of security offenses pursuant to the Order, and the period of the extension of a detention until the end of proceedings. At the beginning of the hearing, the attorney for the Respondents filed the Amending Order with respect to Section 31 of the Order. According to the amendment, a detention prior to being brought before a judge in special circumstances was limited to a period which shall not exceed 96 hours from the time the suspect was arrested, and can, in special circumstances, specified in the Order, be repeatedly extended by two additional days at a time, in accordance with approval by very senior echelons.

 

34.With regard to minors, it was discovered in the hearing that a new Security Provisions Order was meant to come into effect in August, 2012, and the age of minors in the Region was also recently changed to 18 years of age (instead of the previous 16 years). The Respondents requested to monitor the change for one year from the time it became effective, to monitor the wardens' training procedures, and to consider the state of affairs following the lapse of such period. As such, we ruled that the Respondents shall file update notices with respect to the results of the change by no later than December 1, 2012.

 

35.As for the matter of the offenses defined as security offenses, we ruled in a decision at the end of the hearing that the matter was not raised in the Petitions and an order nisi was not requested with respect thereto, other than in the framework of the responses to the Respondents' update notices. Having said that, we found it appropriate that the Respondents consider our remarks, especially the question whether it is appropriate to relate to the security offenses as one assemblage rather than excluding some of them from the definition of security offenses that appear in the Third Addendum of the Security Provisions Order.

 

36.With respect to the detention until the end of proceedings, the Respondents' attorney notified that it was decided to shorten the period of detention to 18 months in security offenses. Since we were of the opinion that this is still a lengthy period and it is appropriate that the matter be re-examined, we instructed that this be addressed in the framework of the update notice that was to be filed. We also ruled that after filing the update notice, the Petitioners would be able to respond thereto, and that we would thereafter decide regarding the further treatment of the Petitions.

 

Additional Update Notice

37.On December 16, 2012, the Respondents filed an additional update notice. First of all, the Respondents informed that the review of the results of the shortening of the periods of detention in the Region indicated that by dedicating effort the Respondents have managed to implement the shortened periods of detention as prescribed in the Amending Order. The Respondents added that following the remarks of this Court in the hearing and the decision it issued at the end of the hearing, the Commander of the IDF Forces in the Region amended the Security Provisions Order regarding the detention of minors, the definition of the security offenses and the period of extension of detention until the end of proceedings:

 

38.With respect to the detention of minors, the Respondents updated that it was decided to act to amend the security legislation and to prescribe special periods of detention until being brought before a judge and until the end of proceedings, for minors in the Region, which as a rule, shall be shorter than the corresponding periods of detention for adults. In this context, the Respondents informed that on November 28, 2012, the Commander of the IDF Forces in the Region signed two new amendments to the Security Provisions Order: Security Provisions Order (Amendment no. 25) (Judea and Samaria) (no. 1711), 5772-2012 (hereinafter: "Order no. 1711"). The Respondents noted that according to Order no. 1711, as from April 2, 2013, the maximum period of detention of a "youth", as defined in the Security Provisions Order, i.e. a person who is at least 12 years but not yet 14 years old, until being brought before a judge shall be 24 hours from the time of arrest, with a possibility of an additional 24 hours extension due to an urgent act of interrogation. It was decided that this period shall apply to the detention of a "youth" for both security offenses and offenses which are not security offenses. Additionally, the Respondents noted that beginning from such time, the maximum period of detention of a "young adult", as defined in the Security Provisions Order, i.e. a person who is at least 14 years old but not yet 16 years old, until being brought before a judge shall be 48 hours from the time of the arrest, with a possibility of an additional 48 hours extension due to an urgent act of interrogation. It was decided that this maximum period of detention shall apply to the detention of a "young adult" for both security offenses and offenses that are not security offenses. The Respondents further noted that such maximum period of detention applies also to minors over the age of 16 and to adults in the Region who are detained for offenses that are not security offenses.

 

39.According to the Respondents this is a very significant shortening of the maximum period of detention until being brought before a judge for all suspects aged 12-14 and for suspects of security offenses aged 14-16, compared to the periods of detention until being brought before a judge for adult suspects for the said offenses, which were also significantly shortened in the framework of the Amending Order. The Respondents added that the maximum periods of detention until being brought before a judge which apply to adults shall continue to apply with respect to minors over the age of 14 for offenses which are not security offenses, and with respect to minors over the age of 16 for security offenses, as stated in the Amending Order.

 

40.With respect to the period of detention until the end of proceedings for minors in the Region, the Respondents further stated that Order no. 1711 prescribes that the period of detention until the end of proceedings for a minor, i.e. any defendant who is less than 18 years old, shall be only one year. Additionally, the detention of minors until the end of proceedings can be extended by a Military Court of Appeals judge, upon the lapse of a year of detention, for a period which shall not exceed three months, which the judge may re-order. It was noted that such provision applies with respect to minors who are accused of security offenses and offenses which are not security offenses.

 

41.As for the definition of security offenses, the Respondents updated that in the framework of the Security Provisions Order (Amendment no. 26) (Judea and Samaria) (no. 1712), 5772-2012 (hereinafter: "Order no. 1712"), approximately a third of the security offenses that were previously listed were removed from the Third Addendum of the Security Provisions Order which defines "Security Offenses", and one offense (offense under Section 222 of the Security Provisions Order) was added, and therefore, Order no. 1712 actually resulted in the significant shortening of the maximum periods of detention of those who are suspected and accused of the many offenses that were removed from the Third Addendum. The Respondents noted that there was a significant change even in the matter of adults since approximately a third of the offenses that were previously defined as "security offenses" are no longer defined as such, and therefore the period of detention until the end of proceedings for anyone suspected of committing them shall be 12 months rather than 18 months. The Respondents claim that the implementation of such significant changes in the various periods of detention necessitates granting an opportunity, prior to considering additional changes, to examine the implications thereof on the law enforcement system in the Region and on its ability to function. Therefore, it was decided that at this time it is inappropriate to change the periods of detention until the end of proceedings for adults in the Region. The Respondents were of the opinion that in doing so, a worthy balance was struck between all of the relevant considerations, while granting obvious preference to the rights of minor defendants over those of the adults.

 

The Petitioners' Responses

 

42.The Petitioners in HCJ 4057/10 responded to the Update Notice. They welcomed the significant shortening of the period of detention applying to minors aged 12-14 and the additional amendments of which the Respondents informed. However, in their opinion, the Petition has not yet been exhausted since even after the amendments, the periods of detention applicable to Palestinians in the Territories, minors and adults alike, remain exaggerated, discriminating and contrary to the law. According to them, to this day, the Respondents have still not raised any legitimate reason which could justify the continued severe discrimination in this matter between Palestinians and Israelis in the Region. According to the Petitioners, even after the amendments to the Order, it is possible to hold a suspect up to eight days without any judicial review, if he is suspected of an offense which is classified as a security offense, including offenses such as throwing rocks (including towards property) and organizing a protest without a license. Such an extended period of detention also applies to minors who are 16 years old or older. In offenses that are not security offenses, the bringing of a suspect before a judge can be delayed up to 96 hours, even when at hand is a minor who is 14 or 15 years old. The Petitioners mentioned that an arrest is meant to be based, to begin with, on a reasonable suspicion, and that the judicial review constitutes part of the formulation of the legality of the initial detention regardless of the severity of the offense. According to them, the difficulties that characterize the interrogations in the Territories are not relevant to the examination of the legality of the arrest to begin with, and therefore should have no implication on the amount of time until first bringing a detainee before a judge.

 

43.As for minors, the Petitioners claimed that even after the amendment of the Order it will still be possible to hold a minor aged 12 or 13 for an entire day until bringing him before a judge, or for two days if there is a need to perform an urgent act of interrogation, and a minor 14-15 years old can even be held under detention up to 96 hours for ordinary offenses, prior to being brought before a judge. This, as opposed to an Israeli 12 or 13 year old minor from the Region who must be brought before a judge within 12 hours or 24 hours in certain cases. The Petitioners added that even after the amendment, the prohibition against holding Israeli minors who live in the Region under detention until the end of proceedings, is not applied to minors under the age of 14. Additionally, a longer period of detention until the end of proceedings shall continue to apply to minors, a year as opposed to six months, and this period can be extended for longer periods of time, three months, compared to 45 days at a time under Israeli law. The Petitioners complained that the extension of a detention of a Palestinian suspect under the age of 14 or until his release without indictment, was not shortened.

 

44.The Petitioners added that despite the removal of approximately a third of the security offenses from the Third Addendum of the Order, it still includes a wide variety of offenses that do not justify lengthy periods of detention, such as, for example, the throwing of objects, including throwing rocks towards property, organizing protest without a license and the breach of a closed military zone order. According to them, leaving these offenses in the list was meant to serve considerations that are totally irrelevant to the interrogation needs, such as deterrence considerations. At the very least, leaving them in the list does not comply with the proportionality criterion. According to the Petitioners, there is no justification to hold Palestinian detainees who are suspected of security offenses up to 96 hours without judicial review, when according to the Amending Order judicial review can be delayed for up to six or eight days at terms that are much more lenient than those that are required for the detention of Israelis living in the Region and who are suspected of severe security offense. In their opinion, there is also no justification to set a longer period of time for the period of detention until the end of proceedings in security offenses. Determining a period of detention until the end of proceedings that is too long will result, in the Petitioners' opinion, in disproportionate infringement of the defendant's right to liberty and prejudices the fairness of the criminal process, particularly when the extended period is automatically pre-determined and does not require special approval. In their opinion, the expectation of lengthy detention could result in defendants admitting to that which is attributed to them only to avoid an extended stay in jail. According to them, the lack of stringent limits on the length of a trial allows a delay of justice which could even interfere with the discovery of the truth. The Petitioners stated that the matter of the definition of the security offenses did not appear in the Petition because the special periods of detention for security offenses were first prescribed by the Respondents in their response to the Petition. Therefore, the legality and the proportionality of the duration of the periods of detention for security offenses as well as for other offenses, constitute, so they argue, an integral part of the reliefs that were requested in the Petition to begin with.

 

45.The Petitioners reiterated their objections regarding the period of detention until the end of proceedings that applies to adults in security offenses, which was not shortened in the Amending Order, as well as with respect to holding a suspect up to eight days until being brought before a judge if detained in a "combat arrest", as stated in Section 33 of the Security Provisions Order. The Petitioners emphasized their claim that the proper criterion to examine the reasonableness and proportionality of the periods of detention that apply to the Palestinian residents of the Territories is the timeframe that applies to Israelis also living in the Region.

 

46.The Petitioners in HCJ 3368/10 notified that they join that which was stated in the response of the Petitioners in HCJ 4057/10. According to them, the differences between the legislation in the Region and the legislation in Israel will remain unfathomable even after the changes that were made to the Order, which in and of themselves are welcome.

 

An Additional Hearing of the Petition

 

47.In a hearing we held on May 23, 2013, the parties reiterated their main arguments: The Petitioners claimed that the amendments made in the Amending Order are not sufficient and that they maintain their petitions. The attorney representing the State requested to separate the matter of the detention of minors from the Petitions being addressed and requested to enable the system to examine the implementation of the amendments to the Order over a reasonable period of time in order to ensure that "things work" and adopt educated decisions. The attorney representing the State stated that upon the lapse of the period, the periods of detention will be re-examined, as the system does not rest on its laurels.

 

48.On October 29, 2013, the Respondents filed an additional update notice. The Respondents informed that on September 30, 2013, the Commander of the IDF Forces in the Region signed Security Provisions Order (Amendment no. 35) (Judea and Samaria) (no. 1727) (hereinafter: "Order no. 1727"), which came into effect on the date of the signing thereof. According to Order no. 1727, the provisions of Article G, Chapter E of the Security Provisions Order, including, the age of minors in the Region, shall from now on be "permanent provisions". The Respondents also updated that since the last hearing of the Petitions, and further to additional staff work, on September 1, 2013, the Commander of the IDF Forces in the Region signed Security Provisions Order (Amendment no. 34) (Judea and Samaria) (no. 1726), 5773-2013 (hereinafter: "Order no. 1726"), which came into effect on October 6, 2013. Order no. 1726 introduced an additional significant shortening of the periods of judicial detention of minors for interrogation purposes, resulting in a Military Court judge being able to order the arrest of a minor for interrogation purposes for a period of 15 days and extend the detention for additional periods which shall not exceed 10 days each, provided that the total periods of consecutive detention with respect to the same event shall not exceed 40 days. A Military Court of Appeals judge may, at the request of the Military Advocate General, extend the detention beyond the first 40 days, for additional periods which shall not exceed 90 days each.

 

49.Additionally, Order no. 1726 prescribed periods of judicial detention for interrogation purposes for adults that are similar to those applicable in Israel, such that a Military Court judge may order the arrest of an adult suspect for interrogation purposes for a period of 20 days and extend the period for additional periods which shall not exceed 15 days each, provided that the total periods of consecutive detention with respect to the same event shall not exceed 75 days. A Military Court of Appeals judge may, at the request of the Military Advocate General, extend the detention beyond the first 75 days, for additional periods which shall not exceed 90 days each.

 

50.According to the Respondents, it is evident that following the coming into force of Order no. 1726, the maximum judicial detention periods of adults for interrogation purposes in the Region are now identical to the periods of detention for interrogation purposes of adults in Israel, mutatis mutandis, except for two matters: one, the maximum period of the first judicial detention order (20 days in the Region compared to 15 in Israel), and two, the requirement to receive the approval of the Attorney General for the request to extend the detention for interrogation purposes beyond 30 days in Israel, compared to the approval of the Military Advocate General, which is only required beyond 75 days in the Region. Considering the previous update notices and this present one, the Respondents are of the opinion that the Petitions have exhausted themselves and should be dismissed.

 

51.On December 30, 2013, the Petitioners in HCJ 4057/10 filed a response to the update notice. According to them, the notice reflects the flawed approach which is guiding the Respondents, who on the one hand prescribed discriminating and exaggerated periods of detention for Palestinians and on the other hand, ostensibly adopted the principle of equality. The Petitioners welcome the Respondents' decision to distinguish between minors and adults with respect to the periods of judicial detention for interrogation purposes and to somewhat shorten the periods applicable to Palestinian minors, however object to the arbitrary determination of longer periods of detention for Palestinian minors as opposed to the periods of detention prescribed for Israeli minors living in the Region and compare them. The Petitioners add that the differences between to the periods of judicial detention for adults are not solely "technical", since while as a rule an Israeli adult suspect in the Region cannot be detained for more than 30 days with respect to the same event, a Palestinian adult suspect can be detained for 75 days and his detention can even be extended without adopting the basic rule pursuant to which upon the lapse of 75 days, "he shall be released from detention, with or without bail". According to the Petitioners, the Respondents have not yet, to this day, provided any legal reasons for the discriminating periods of detention which are imposed upon the Palestinians.

 

Discussion and Ruling

 

52.A person's right to liberty is a constitutional right that is grounded in Section 5 of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, where it is prescribed that: "There shall be no deprivation or restriction of the liberty of a person by imprisonment, detention, or any other way." The importance and centrality of the right to liberty in a democratic regime also stems from the implications of denying the liberty for the injured person and for the damage that could be caused thereto as a result thereof. The denial of liberty is not expressed only in a person merely being subject to the custody of the State, but also is felt each and every day, during the period when a person is subject to the rules of conduct and discipline that are customary in the place of custody and which also limit his liberty (see HCJ 2605/05 The Law and Business Academic Center v. The Minister of Finance, paragraph 25 of President D. Beinisch's decision (November 19, 2009)). The right to due process prior to a person's liberty being denied derives from the right to liberty, and it is even warranted that he will be given the opportunity to respond and voice his arguments prior to this fundamental right being denied (LCrimA 837/12 The State of Israel v. Gusakov, paragraph 29 (November 20, 2012)). On the other hand, it is in the public interest to expose criminals and prevent crime, and certainly to try and thwart security offenses. Therefore, it is necessary to strike a balance in the constant tension that exists in the Israeli reality, between security and protecting the rights of someone suspected of committing an offense. This tension emerges also in the matter before us – the periods of detention of Palestinians who are residents of the Region.

 

53.As mentioned, the purpose of the laws of detention, including in the Region, is to strike a balance between the public interest of exposing and preventing crime and protecting the rights of the suspect. One must remember that the Region has unique characteristics which derive from the security reality and the essence of the military rule applicable there, from the security needs and from the difficulties of enforcing the law, in light of the absence of Israeli control in part of the area. There is no dispute that constant judicial review of the process of arrest for interrogation purposes is important for the protection of human rights, however the continuity of the interrogation is important for the purpose of realizing the objective of the interrogation: exposing the truth. Exposing the truth quickly and efficiently is especially important when the security of the State and its citizens are at stake.

 

54.The dilemma, therefore, is clear: on the one hand, the conduct of a proper legal procedure is an essential element to secure the proportionality and constitutionality of an arrest for interrogation purposes, and in principle, the appearance of the suspect before a judge should not be regarded as an obstacle, but rather as a fundamental condition for an effective and constitutional arrest for interrogation purposes (CHR 8823/07 Anonymous v. The State of Israel, paragraph 32 (February 11, 2010)). This follows from the customary fundamental approach that judicial involvement is an integral part of the arrest process. It is not "external" judicial review of the arrest, but rather an integral part of the formulation of the arrest itself. This is a constitutional approach that views the judicial involvement in the arrest procedure an essential part of the protection of individual liberties:

 

"The judicial involvement is the barricade against arbitrariness: it is warranted from the principle of the rule of law (see Brogan v. United Kingdom (1988) 11 EHRR 117, 134). It guarantees that the delicate balance between individual liberties and the security of the general public – a balance that lies at the basis of the laws of arrest – shall be preserved (see ADA10/94 Anonymous v. The Minister of Defense, IsrSC 53(1) 97, 105)." (HCJ 3239/02 Marav v. Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria, IsrSC 54(2) 349, 368 (2003))."

 

The meaning of this is that it is necessary to adjust the interrogation methods to the need to interrupt them at a certain stage of the interrogation in order to allow an effective and fair judicial procedure to take place. An interrogation that takes place over a period of time, when the person being interrogated is in detention and cannot appear before the court and voice what he has to say, could result in disproportionate infringement of human dignity and liberty.

 

On the other hand, we cannot ignore the fact that the security legislation which is the subject of our discussion was created in light of a complex security situation in a territory that is occupied under belligerent occupation (occupatio bellica), that the special security conditions applicable there dictate the determination of arrangements that are different than those that are customary in the occupying state. This reality has, inter alia, resulted in the detention of Palestinian suspects prior to being brought before a judge, for periods of time that are longer than those of Israeli suspects. In this context, it is important to remember, for example, as the Respondents have clarified, that due to the security situation, the ability to move in the Region is limited and that part of the area is under Palestinian control. The security conditions could, therefore, prevent, or delay, the interrogation parties from reaching the arena, and could make the collection of testimony and evidence more difficult. Additionally, according to the Respondents, potential witnesses do not cooperate with the interrogation parties, either due to their sympathy towards the suspects or due to their hostility towards the State of Israel. According to the Respondents this also creates genuine difficulty in interrogations and greatly delays the ability to formulate initial evidence against the suspect. Furthermore, intelligence material that was received has to be used carefully and often it is necessary to wait before using it so as not to give away the source of the information or god forbid risk his life. Additionally, there is an enhanced concern in the Region of fleeing into areas that are under the Palestinian Authority's control, such that it will not be possible re-arrest such person who was released from detention. In such conditions, the interrogation of the detainees is complicated and complex and at times a longer period of time is necessary to exhaust the interrogation before bringing the detainee before a judge.

 

55.As mentioned, the Petitioners claim that the balance between the need to maintain the security of the general public and the State and the need to protect human rights, dignity and liberty, which is reflected in the Security Provisions Order is not the proper balance even after the amendment thereof, while the Respondents request to examine the implementation of that which is stated in the Amending Order before being able to reach any conclusions on the matter. This is the state of affairs in the case at hand. In any case, it appears that the parties to the Petition share the opinion that judicial review is an essential tool for protecting the legality and propriety of the arrest and share the aspiration to shorten the periods of detention of the Palestinian residents of the Region as much as possible and to apply statutory arrangements thereon which are as similar as possible to those that are customary in Israel, in terms of the degree of protection they provide to the suspect's or defendant's rights. This was also the spirit of what was expressed in this Court, when the matter was presented before it in the past. The Supreme Court expressed its opinion and ruled that:

 

"It is time to apply statutory arrangements in the Military Courts which are similar to those prescribed in the Arrests Law in Israel, in order to protect the rights of defendants; all subject to the unique characteristics of the Region. This is the case with respect to dictating periods of a detention from the time of filing an indictment and until the commencement of the trial (Section 60 of the Arrests Law which does not have a corresponding statutory arrangement in the Region); with respect to limiting the period of the detention between the end of interrogation and the filing of an indictment (Section 17(d) of the Arrests Law, a matter which also does not have a corresponding statutory arrangement in the Region); and with respect to shortening the periods of detention prescribed in the security legislation that applies in the Region, as they are significantly longer than those prescribed in the Arrests Law in Israel" (HCJ 10720/06 Farid v. The Military Court of Appeals (February 11, 2007).

 

56.Indeed, a consequence of this aspiration is the changes that were made to the arrangements of arrests of Palestinian detainees who are residents of the Region. During the course of the Petition, the Respondents took far reaching measures with respect to shortening the said periods of detention, so as to make them more similar to the periods of detention customary in Israel. For the sake of good order and in order to clarify the matter, I shall present the changes that were made to the Security Provisions Order since the Petitions were filed, in the following table:

 

 

 

	Previous Law	New Law (the Amending Order)
Initial detention until being brought before a judge for offenses that are not security offenses	Eight days	Minors: 12-14 year olds: 24 hours 14-18 year olds: 48 hours Adults: 48 hours + an option to extend up to 96 hours
Initial  detention until being brought before a judge for security offenses	Eight days	Minors: 12-14 year olds: 24 hours 14-16 year olds: 48 hours 16-18 year olds: 96 hours Adults: 96 hours + an option to extend up to 8 days
Judicial  detention for interrogation purposes prior to filing an indictment	30 days Can be extended for additional periods which shall not exceed 30 days each time, provided that the total consecutive periods with respect to the same event shall not exceed 90 days. Can be extended beyond the 90 days for three additional months.	Minors: 15 days Can be extended for additional periods of up to 10 days each time, provided that the total consecutive periods with respect to the same event shall not exceed 40 days. Can be extended beyond the 40 days for additional periods which shall not exceed 90 days each.   Adults: 20 days Can be extended for periods of up to 15 days each time, provided that the total consecutive periods with respect to the same event shall not exceed 75 days. Can be extended beyond the 75 days for additional periods which shall not exceed 90 days each.
"Bridge Detention" for the purpose of filing an indictment	Unlimited	Eight days
Detention after filing indictment and before the commencement of the trial	Unlimited	60 days
Detention until the end of proceedings in offenses that are not security offenses	Two years Extensions of up to six months each.	Minors: A year Extensions of up to three months each. Adults: A year Extensions of up to six months each.
Detention until the end of proceedings in security offenses	Two years Extensions of up to six months each.	Minors: A year Extensions of up to three months each. Adults: 18 months Extensions of up to six months each.

 

 

 

57.The difference between the new law (the Amending Order) and the law existing in Israel can be seen in the table below:

 

	Initial detention until being brought before a judge	Detention before indictment	Detention until end of proceedings	"Bridge  Detention " for purpose of filing an indictment
In the Region – Offenses that are not security offenses	48-96 hours	20-75 days	A year + extensions of up to six months each.	Eight days
In Israel - Offenses that are not security offenses	24-48 hours	15-30 days	Nine months + extensions of up to three months each.	Five days
In the Region – Security offenses	96 hours – 8 days	20-75 days	18 months + extensions of up to six months each.	Eight days
In Israel – Security offenses	24-96 hours	20-35 days	Nine months + extensions of up to three months each.	Five days
Minors in the Region – 12-14 years old	24-48 hours	15-40 days Security offenses: 20-75 days	A year	Eight days
Minors in the Region – 14-16 years old	48-96 hours	Offenses that are not security offenses: 15-40 days Security offenses: 20-75 days	A year	Eight days
Minors in the Region – 16-18	Like adults: 48-96-8 days	Offenses that are not security offenses: 15-40 days Security offenses: 20-75 days	A year	Eight days
Minors in Israel – 12-14	12-24 hours	20-40 days	Will not be arrested until the end of proceedings	Five days
Minors in Israel – 14-18	24-48 hours	20-40 days	Six months + extensions of up to 45 days each.	Five days

 

58.The tables I have presented above illustrate the significant changes the Respondents made in the matter at hand. For example, the current maximum period of detention until being brought before a judge for offenses that are not security offenses is 48 hours from the time of the arrest, with an option of extension as per the decision of an administrative authority for additional periods which shall not exceed 48 additional hours due to urgent acts of interrogations. In security offenses the maximum period of detention until being brought before a judge is 96 hours from the time of arrest, with an option of extending the detention by 48 additional hours by an administrative party in unusual circumstances, in which the head of the Interrogation Department at the Israel Security Agency was convinced that the interrogation could be substantially prejudiced. In most special circumstances, it is possible to extend the detention by an additional 48 hours (beyond the said six days), when the head of the Interrogation Division at the Israel Security Agency is convinced that interrupting the interrogation could result in harming the performance of an essential interrogation that is meant to save human lives. The Respondents repeatedly emphasized in their arguments that the new arrangement requires preparations and is scheduled to be reexamined again upon the lapse of two years from the time the Order becomes effective, based on the experience that shall accumulate during such period.

 

59.A significant change also occurred with respect to the matter of minors. We shall remind that before the Petitions were filed, there was no distinction at all between minors and adults in all of the periods of detention in the Region. Today, the age of minority in the Region increased from 16 to 18, and special arrangements were prescribed for minors based on a division into a number of age groups. Order no. 1711 provides that the maximum period of detention until bringing a "youth", i.e. a person who is at least 12 years old by not yet 14 year old, before a judge, both for security offenses and for offenses that are not security offenses, shall be 24 hours from the arrest, with a possibility of extending by an additional 24 hours due to urgent acts of interrogation; and that the maximum period of detention until bringing a "young adult", i.e. a person who is at least 14 years old but not yet 16 years old, before a judge, both for security offenses and offenses which are not security offenses, shall be 48 hours from the time of the arrest, with a possibility of extending by an additional 48 hours due to urgent acts of interrogation.

 

60.As for the definition of security offenses, the distinction between security offenses and offenses that are not security offenses for the purpose of the periods of detention in the Region was made by the Respondents only after the Petitions before us were filed. Therefore, the Petitioners' objections regarding this matter were not raised in their Petitions, but rather only in the framework of responses to the Respondents' update notices. The dispute regarding which offenses shall be defined as security offenses, is directly and closely linked to the reliefs that were requested in the Petitions, and in fact is a consequence of these reliefs. Indeed, we found it appropriate that the Respondents consider our remarks in the hearing that was held in the Petitions, inter alia, regarding the question whether it is proper to relate to the security offenses as one assemblage rather than excluding some of them from the Order's definitions. Consequently, the Respondents removed a third of the security offenses listed in the list in the Addendum of the Security Provisions Order and this is to be welcomed. If and to the extent the Petitioners still have objections regarding the offenses listed in the Addendum, they are entitled to voice their objections separately and it is inappropriate to further discuss this matter in the framework of the Petitions before us, which already encompass many matters.

 

61.Now, therefore, the staff work that was performed jointly with the Ministry of Justice and the Prime Minister Office produced a welcome change in the periods of detention listed in the Security Provisions Order. The change is meant to reduce, as must as possible, the infringement of the rights of the Palestinian detainees. There is no doubt that the State came a long way and significantly and even dramatically shortened the periods of detention applicable to the Palestinian residents of the Region. It is worthy to note the many discussions and long meetings that the State held with the IDF and the Ministry of Justice, together with other government ministries, until reaching the results which are expressed in the Amending Order (and in this respect, the Petitioners' achievements are invaluable. Their efforts to shorten the periods of detention of the Palestinian residents of the Region, bore significant fruit and are commendable).

 

62.So, considering the differences that stem from the different conditions between Israel and the Region, and in light of the dramatic changes that were just recently made, the "on site" implementation of which must be examined over a period of time – we are of the opinion that the current detention periods which were prescribed for adults, who are suspected of committing security offenses, in the time period before the filing of an indictment – are reasonable and proportionate, and therefore there is no cause for our involvement in this context at the current time. We shall mention that the Respondents requested to examine how the system adjusts to the changes that were made in the Security Provisions Order over a reasonable period of approximately two years, and it is presumed that upon the lapse of the period and in accordance with the on-site reality, the option of further shortening the mentioned periods of detention shall be reconsidered. We therefore assume that the Respondents' policy shall be re-examined from time to time in accordance with the security situation assessments and that if and to the extent it shall be possible to formulate reliefs these shall be applied in the future by the Respondents accordingly, and the periods of detention prescribed in the Amending Order shall be further shortened. Obviously, the Petitioners have the option of voicing their objections regarding the mentioned periods of detention, also upon the lapse of the "adjustment period".

 

63.Having said that, and without making light of the efforts the Respondents exerted and the important changes they made following the filing of the Petitions, we are not comfortable with three central matters (which partly overlap): Firstly, the periods of time in which Palestinian minors who are residents of the Region can be detained. Indeed significant changes were also made with respect to the population of minors, as specified above, however, in light of the special caution and sensitivity that must be applied towards people who are not yet adults, we are of the opinion that it is necessary to continue to monitor what is being done in their matter. The second matter that is not yet exhausted in the current Petitions is the periods of detention that was prescribed for Palestinians who are suspected or accused of offenses that are not defined as security offenses. The reasons presented in the Respondents' response, in its various stages, did not convince us of the need for such long periods of detention for "ordinary" criminal offenses. This is true also with respect to the third matter of detention until the end of proceedings of both minors and adults, in security offenses and offenses that are not security offenses (including detention after filing an indictment and prior to the commencement of the trial, which is currently 60 days). The circumstances and constraints which the Respondents indicated, by virtue of which more extended periods of detention are required in the Region, relate primarily to the stage of interrogation and collection of evidence and not to the stage of conducting the trial, after the indictment has been filed. In light of these difficulties, we considered issuing an order nisi with respect to the three mentioned matters, however at this stage we decided to leave the Petitions pending and to instruct the Respondents to reconsider how to advance these matters and give notice to such effect in the form of an update notice which is to be filed by September 15, 2014.

 

In summary, in all that relates to the maximum periods of detention for adults suspected of committing security offenses, at the stage before an indictment is filed; and in the scope of the offenses defined as security offenses – the Petitions are denied without an order for expenses (subject to that stated in paragraphs 60 and 62). However, in all that relates to the periods of detention of minors, the periods of detention of adults in offenses that are not security offenses; and the period of detention until the end of proceedings (of minors and adults, in all classifications of offenses) – the Respondents shall, as mentioned, file an update notice by September 15, 2014.

 

Given today, 6^th of Nissan, 5774 (April 6, 2014).

 

 

Justice                                     Justice                                                 Justice

H.C.J 100/57

H.C.J 103/57

 

           

IZHAK WEISS

v.

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE ISRAEL POLICE AND ANOTHER.

H.C.J 100/57

 

 

YOHANAN MILLER

v.

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE ISRAEL POLICE AND ANOTHER.

H.C.J 103/57

 

           

In the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice.

[February 13, 1958]

Before Olshan P., Sussman J., and Landau J.

 

 

 

Jurisdiction - Police Ordinance - Court of Discipline - Offence committed by Police in Gaza Strip after Sinai Campaign - Distinction between jurisdiction of Court of Discipline and ordinary criminal jurisdiction - Jurisdiction personal and  not territorial - International Law.

 

                The petitioners were members of the Israel Police Force. They were sent to the "Gaza strip" when it was occupied by Israel armed forces after the Sinai Campaign to do normal police work there. In contravention of an order forbidding the purchase of goods, they bought nylon material, medicines, cameras and films. They were charged before a Court of Discipline which was set up under the Police Ordinance. The petitioners contended that the court had no jurisdiction to hear charges against them because, inter alia, the Police Ordinance only dealt and could only deal with offences committed in Israel and not with offences committed in Gaza which was not part of Israel and had not even been declared to be the occupied territory of Israel. They obtained an order nisi from the High Court calling upon the Inspector General of the Israel Police and the Court of Discipline to show cause why the proceedings against the petitioners should not be discontinued.

           

            Held, discharging the orders nisi, that the jurisdiction of the Court of Discipline, which was established for preventing the lowering of the standards of the police, is not the same as ordinary criminal jurisdiction, but is personal and not territorial. The tribunal, therefore, had jurisdiction in the present case, although the offences were committed beyond the territory of Israel.

               

Palestine case referred to:

 

(1)        Privy Council Appeal 24/45 Lipshitz v. Valero & Others (1947), 14 P.L.R. 437.

 

            Israel cases referred to:

 

(2)        H.C. 279/51 Amsterdam & Others v. Minister of Finance (1952), 6 P.D. 945.

(3)        Cr. A. 126/51 EI-Tourani v. Attorney-General (1952), 6 P.D.1145.

(4)        Cr. A. 174/54 Shtampfer v. Attorney-General (1956), 10 P.D. 5.

(5)        H.C. 27/48 Lahisse v. Minister of Defence & Others (1949), 2 P.D. 153.

(6)   H.C. 268/52, H.C. 47/53 Sapoznikov & Others v. Disciplinary Tribunal (1953), 7 P.D. 656.

(7)   H.C. 13/57 Tsimoukin v. Civil Service Disciplinary Tribunal & Others (1957), 11 P.D. 856.

(8)        Cr. A. 20/53 Neiman & Others v. Attorney-General (1955), 9 P.D. 845.

(9)        C.F. 82/51 Haifa, Attorney-General v. A.B. (1951/52), 5 P.M. 123.

(10)      C.F. 208/52 Jerusalem, Shababo's Heirs & Others v. Heilin (1952/53), 8 P.M. 455.

 

English cases referred to: -

 

(11)      Niboyet v. Niboyet: (1878), 4 P.D. 1.

(12)      Re A Solicitor, Ex parte Incorporated Law Society: (1898), 1 Q.B. 331.

(13)      R. v. Casement: (1917) 1 K.B. 98.

 

Rabinovitch for the petitioners.

H.H. Cohn, Attorney-General, for the respondents.

 

LANDAU, J. The question raised in both these petitions is whether a Court of Discipline of the Israel Police Force has jurisdiction to deal with offences against discipline committed by Israel policemen in the Gaza strip at the time when the strip was in the occupation of the Israel Defence Forces.

 

            Both the petitioners are serving in the Frontier Force, Israel Police. The petitioner in File No. 100/57 holds the rank of assistant district inspector and the petitioner in File No. 103/57, the rank of police sergeant. During November and December, 1956, they served with the Israel Police Force in the Gaza district. In April, 1957, they were charged together with a third policeman before a Court of Discipline of the Israel Police on nine counts in connection with the purchase of various goods (nylon cloth, medicines, cameras and films) in the months of November and December, 1956, in Gaza, contrary to the orders given by the Deputy Inspector of Police, Gaza District, and, alternatively, by the Military Governor and, alternatively, contrary to standing orders for the Gaze area, all of which prohibited the purchase of goods in Gaza by anyone not a local inhabitant. These offences were described in the indictment as disobedience to an oral order duly given by a superior officer (that is to say an oral order given by the Deputy Inspector of Police, Gaza area); and as disobedience to an order duly given in writing by a superior officer (that is to say standing orders for the Gaza area) all of which are offences against the good order and discipline of the Police Force as set out in s. 18(1)(i) of the Palestine Police Ordinance and paragraphs 1 and 84 of the addendum to the Police (Definition of Disci­plinary Offences) Rules, 1955. The tenth count was confined to the petitioner Weiss for leaving without a reasonable cause the area of duty, contrary to paragraph 7 of the addendum - in that on December 1, 1956, being a member of the Police Force and serving in Gaza, he left the Gaza area and proceeded to Migdal without reasonable cause and, finally, the eleventh count also against the same petitioner and again contrary to paragraph 1 of the addendum - in that on the same day he used a police transport car for a purpose not connected with police duty, namely transporting goods contrary to orders of police headquarters.

 

            In their petition to the court, the applicants claimed that the Court of Discipline had no jurisdiction to deal with these offences. This court has issued orders nisi against the Inspector General of the Israel Police and against the Court of Discipline to appear and show cause why the proceedings before the Court of Discipline should not be discontinued and the complaint lodged before it struck out.

           

            The Attorney-General, who represented the respondents on the return day, did not deny the facts as set out in the petition, and the difference between the parties concerns the legal questions alone. The facts necessary to understand the dispute are shortly these: -

 

            (a) On the conquest of the Gaza strip by the Israel Defence Forces, the area was placed under martial law. The Israel Police entered the district at the request of the army for the purpose of doing police duty there. In an order setting out the "powers of the Israel Police in the district of Gaza in accordance with the law in force in the district of Gaza" which was issued by the Israel Army Commander, Gaza, to the Inspector General of the Israel Police, the Army Commander, by virtue of his authority, ordered that "the Israel Police Force is as from November 15, 1956, authorised to act in the Gaza area as a police force in accordance with the Police Ordinance as it was in force in Palestine on May 15, 1948, with such amendments as were added thereafter in the Gaza District". It was further ordered, "that every policeman or officer duly appointed in Israel shall have the right in the Gaza District to exercise the same powers that he had in Israel." The petitioners claim that they went to the Gaza strip after its conquest by the Israel Army and stayed there from time to time. It must be presumed that during those times they were there on police duty.

 

(b) In the order of the Military Commander which was mentioned in the indictment against the petitioners before the Court of Discipline, the purchase or sale of anything by anyone who was not a local inhabitant of the Gaza District was forbidden except by permission of the Commander or on his behalf. The order further provided that anyone contravening its provisions would be tried, in the words of the order, "by a military court set up to try offences against the Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945, and shall be liable to imprisonment for up to 3 years or a fine of up to IL. 1,000.- or both". We have also been told that the standing order for the Gaza area mentioned in the indictment repeated the contents of this order of the Military Commander.

 

(c) The area of the Gaza strip had not been declared as an 'occupied area' in accordance with section 1 of the Judicial and Administrative Areas Law, 1948. In the proclamation issued by the Commander of the Israel Army in the Gaza strip on November 13, 1956, it was declared that "the laws which were in force in the District on November 1, 1956. shall remain valid in so far as they shall not be contrary to this Proclamation or other proclamations or orders that have been given or will be given by me and subject to such modifications as the establishment in the Gaza District of martial law by the Defence Army of Israel may make necessary."

 

 (d) No proclamation was made according to section 51 of the Police Ordinance 1⁾ that enabled the Police Force or any part thereof to be placed under military command.

 

            Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rabinovitch, claims that the above facts do not entitle the Court of Discipline to entertain jurisdiction and try his clients for what they did during their stay in the Gaza district, that the jurisdiction of the Court of Discipline was derived from section 18 of the Police Ordinance, that the whole of the Ordinance, and therefore also the disciplinary jurisdiction provided for by it, apply only to acts committed within the State of Israel, that is to say, within the area to which the law of the State of Israel applies according to the Judicial and Administrative Areas Law. For the same reason the superior officers of the appellants in the Police Force had no legal right to send them outside the State of Israel. Further, the jurisdiction of the Court of Discipline set up under the Police Ordinance was a criminal jurisdiction and the acts alleged against the petitioners in the indictment were criminal acts and for this reason as well, there was no jurisdiction to try them. Criminal jurisdiction, they submitted, is territorial, that is to say limited to acts committed within the borders of the State, unless otherwise provided in the law - and there was no such provision. If it was possible to try the petitioners at all, either it would have to be done in accordance with the Police Ordinance, and such amendments of it as were made after 15.5.48 in the Gaza district - and no such amendments were called to our attention - or the petitioners should have been tried under martial law in accordance with the Order of the Military Governor.

 

            In spite of the exhaustive arguments of counsel for the petitioners, I have come to the conclusion that these applications must be dismissed and that the Police Court of Discipline had jurisdiction to try the petitioners for the offences set out in the indictment submitted before it.

           

            Counsel for the petitioners quoted at length from the judgment of Agranat J. in Amsterdam v. Minister of Finance (2), and indeed we can gather from this illuminating precedent the following principles relevant to this case: -

           

(a) From the point of view of internal ('municipal') law there is no restriction upon the power of a legislator possessing sovereign jurisdiction to enact laws concerning property and persons even if they are situated outside the borders of the State (ibid., at pp. 965, 966).

 

(b) Nevertheless the common law (and following it also Israel Law) recognises the principle that a law passed by Parliament applies only within the territory of the State unless it is otherwise provided, either expressly or by implication (ibid., at pp. 967, 968).

 

(c) An implied intention not to follow the territorial principle can be gathered from the general purpose of the law viewed as a whole in all its sections, or from the nature of the provisions of the law under consideration (ibid. p. 968, also the conclusions at p. 971).

 

            There is no conflict between these principles and Article 38 of the Palestine Order in Council, on which counsel for the petitioner relies. This Article (as amended in 1935) provides:

           

                        "Subject to the provisions of this part of the Order and any Ordinance or Rules the civil courts hereinafter described and any other courts or tribunals constituted by or under any of the provisions of any Ordinance, shall exercise jurisdiction in all matters and over all persons in Palestine" (substitute Israel).

           

 ject to the provisions) were meant to restrict and not to extend what is said in the body of the Article in the same way as similar words in the first paragraph of Article 431⁾ must be read restrictively (see Lipshitz v. Valero (l)). Does this mean, then, that according to the interpretation of this Article the civil courts in Israel have territorial jurisdiction only in respect of property and persons within the State? If this were so, this would seriously limit the above principle that a sovereign legislator has power to make laws applicable to matters and persons even if they are outside the borders of the State. For what is the use of a law which is meant to apply extra-territorially if the court has no power to enforce it? Both these matters are the two sides of the same coin. This proposition would lead us to the surprising conclusion that there was no validity to such laws as section 5 of the Ottoman Code of Criminal Procedure and the Rules for serving abroad of a summons to appear for trial before a civil court.

 

            The Attorney-General contended in this connection that the words "all matters and over all persons" in Article 38 do not mean that in a trial before the court both the matter and the person concerned must be within the boundaries of the State but that it would be sufficient if one or the other was in Israel. That is to say that for the purpose of Article 38 it would be enough in the case before us if the petitioners were to be present in Israel at the time of their trial although the incidents being the subject matter of the prosecution took place outside the boundaries of the State. I personally expressed  a similar opinion in the case of the Attorney-General v. A.B. (9). The judgment in that case was confirmed in EI-Tourani v. Attorney-General (3). This would be a sufficient answer here were we to hold that in Article 38 the legislator had made provisions concerning the jurisdiction of the courts of the State over persons or matters outside the State.

 

            But on further consideration it seems to me that this proposition itself is doubtful especially as regards the question of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the courts in criminal cases. Article 38 is phrased in language commonly used in English statutes and had the legislator intended to make rules on this matter he would no doubt have been more exact and would have said that the local courts had jurisdiction in criminal matters when the accused at the time of committing the offence was within the country. For as is well known according to English law, the jurisdiction of a court to try an accused for a crime depends first and foremost on the place where the accused was at the time when the offence was committed. But according to Article 38 the jurisdiction of the court would be made dependent on the place where the accused is found at the time of trial. From this we see that this Article is not dealing with the question of extra-territorial jurisdiction of the court but with a different question altogether - that is to say with defining the boundary line of the jurisdiction of the civil courts therein mentioned and that of the other courts with limited jurisdiction, especially the religious courts. The legislator lays down that the jurisdiction of the civil courts is general, covering all persons and all property in Palestine, subject always to such limitations as are set out in the law as, for instance, Article 51(1) in connection with the jurisdiction of the religious courts in matters of personal status. Article 38 does not deal at all with the power of the Mandatory legislator to issue laws with extra-territorial effect or with the courts to enforce these laws. In other words the emphasis in this Article is on the comprehensive nature of the jurisdiction over all persons and all property in the land but it does not exclude additional jurisdiction - which need not necessarily be comprehensive - with regard to persons or property outside the country or with regard to causes of action originating abroad.

           

            I find support for my views in the judgment of Witkon J. which was given by him whilst sitting in the District Court in the case of Shababo's Heirs v. Heilin (10). That judgment was cited with approval by this court in Shtampfer v. Attorney-General (4). The subject-matter of that case was the immunity enjoyed by foreign diplomats and it was contended that Article 38 repudiated this claim to immunity. It is true that that case was different from the one before us because there an attempt was made to limit the comprehensive scope of the jurisdiction of the courts over all persons within the boundaries of the State. That contention, of course, could not possibly stand because Article 38 is also subject to and is restricted by Article 46 of the Order in Council 1⁾ which transfers to the body of the local law the rules of the common law relating to immunity of foreign diplomats. But in the course of his judgment Witkon. J. said : -

 

            "Article 38 is a kind of introduction to that part of the Order in Council which deals with the administration of justice by the courts and the division of their jurisdictions between the various courts themselves. The article is not meant to lay down rules in the field of International Law."

           

            With respect, I should like to agree with those words which also apply to our case. Consequently therefore (so long as there is no law enacted specifically on the subject) the general principles of the common law with regard to extending the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the local courts apply in this country. And this is not because the first words in Article 38 are directed to Article 46 but because of the provisions of Article 46 itself without any reference at all to Article 38.

           

            The law applying in the case before us is the law which was in force before the enactment of the Courts Law, 1957. In this connection however it is necessary to point out that the Israel legislator was of the opinion, it would seem, that the introductory proviso in Article 38 could be dispensed with altogether, for this Article was repealed by s. 48(8) of the Courts Law without being re-enacted.

           

            Counsel for the petitioners contends further that the jurisdiction of the Police Court of Discipline is by its very nature criminal and that, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, criminal jurisdiction is territorial and that the Police Ordinance has no such provision at all; on the contrary it has clear indications that it was intended to apply only within the confines of the territory of the State.

           

            Counsel for the petitioners is correct when he says that the basic principle of the criminal jurisdiction of the court is territorial. Such is the English law (see Halsbury, third edition, Vol. 10, p. 317, s. 579) and we have the same principle as it came to us through section 6 of the Criminal Code Ordinance. 1936. But this law is not without its exceptions. There are such exceptions in English law which were created by special statutes to cover certain crimes which were committed by British subjects outside England such as, for example, treason, homicide, bigamy (Halsbury, ibid., at p. 322 ff.). In Niboyet v. Niboyet (11), Brett, L. J. laid down the principle as follows: -

 

            "All criminal statutes are in their terms general but they apply only to offences committed within the terri­tory (of the State) or by British subjects" (p. 20).

           

From the historical point of view the personal principle preceded the territorial in criminal law, having its origin in the feudal notion of the tie of allegiance binding the king and his subjects. As we have said the principle continues to exist even today in connection with certain crimes and it does so side by side with the territorial principle which has in these days become more important. According to International Law too every State is entitled to exercise its legal jurisdiction over its subjects even whilst they are abroad. See for instance how Schwarzenberger in A Manual of International Law, third edition, p. 42, explains the historical transition from the personal principle to the territorial principle in modern times. He writes as follows: -

 

            "Thus the conception of territorial - as distinct from personal - sovereignty and jurisdiction developed, and the notion of personal sovereignty was pushed into the background. It would not, however, be correct to assume that the conception of territorial jurisdiction completely replaced that of personal jurisdiction. In modern international law the conceptions of personal and territorial jurisdiction exist side by side, though with the emphasis on territorial sovereignty."

 

And Oppenheim in the eighth edition of his book, vol. I at p. 330 says: -

 

            "The Law of Nations does not prevent a State from exercising jurisdiction within its own territory over its subjects travelling or residing abroad, since they remain under its personal supremacy."

 

            Thus our own Criminal Code Ordinance in section 3 (b)1⁾ strays from the territorial principle in prosecutions for crime and the same is the case in Article 3 of the Army Code (see Lahisse v. Minister of Defence (5), paragraph 31 of the judgment at p. 166). Further, the Israel legislator has recently abandoned the territorial principle to an even greater extent in the Criminal Amendment (Offences Committed Abroad) Law, 1955.

           

            I have dwelt at length on these matters because as we shall see they are of some importance: not that I am to be taken as agreeing with the contention of counsel for the petitioners that trials before a Police Court of Discipline are subject to the principle of territorial jurisdiction of criminal trials. Counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment of Sussman, J. in Sapoznikov v. Disciplinary Tribunal (6), which upheld the jurisdiction of the same Court of Discipline to deal with an offence "of a civil nature", such as rape, although purporting to be an offence against discipline for acting in a manner likely to bring discredit on the good name of the force (ibid. at p. 662). The view was expressed in that judgment (at the end of p. 661) that a policeman who had been convicted in such a prosecution before a Court of Discipline could plead "autrefois convict" in a prosecution for the same offence before an ordinary court. The President of the court, dissenting, differed from this way of interpreting the law which would give to a policeman a special status that was better than that of an ordinary citizen as regards responsibilty for criminal acts that had nothing to do with his police duties (ibid. at p. 665). Counsel for the petitioners also cited the words of my judgment in Tsimoukin v. Civil Service Disciplinary Tribunal (7), where I respectfully agreed with the opinion of Sussman J. that the trial of a policeman before a Court of Discipline might induce an ordinary court to accept a plea of 'double jeopardy' and I added that such a trial was "very much like an ordinary criminal trial". Such a similarity no doubt exists especially in 'civil crimes' that are triable before a Court of Discipline. But we must not conclude from this that because the methods of the trials are similar, that trial before a Court of Discipline is in its nature essentially identical with that of an ordinary criminal trial. Regarding this point Cheshin, D.P. said this in Tsimoukin v. Civil Service Disciplinary Tribunal (7), at p. 861: -

 

            "The object of a trial before a criminal court is not the same as that of a trial before a court of discipline. In a criminal prosecution the purpose is to find out whether the accused has broken the law and whether he should receive the punishment prescribed by law; whereas the purpose of a trial before a court of discipline is not so much to punish the 'criminal' as to establish first and foremost whether he is still worthy of the trust which the authorities and the public had placed in him before he came under suspicion."

 

            We have to note in this connection that although according to section 18 (6) of the Police Ordinance the accused who is charged before a Court of Discipline is liable to both imprisonment and fine, according to section 18 (7) he is liable to dismissal which is the penalty par excellence of proceedings before a Court of Discipline.

           

            In a judgment on the same subject, I said in Tsimoukin v. Civil Service Tribunal (7), supra, that "proceedings before a Court of Discipline are sui generic and the usual notions regarding criminal or civil proceedings do not fit them completely". In spite of the fact, undesirable though it may be, that a policeman who has committed a crime might escape punishment in a prosecution for the same act before an ordinary court after a trial before a Court of Discipline, the purpose of proceedings before a Court of Discipline is completely different from that of regular criminal proceedings, in that it is meant to preserve the discipline and good order of the Police Force and to eliminate all unworthy elements from its ranks.

           

            Because of this difference in purpose, one cannot apply to trials before a Court of Discipline the principle of territorial jurisdiction which is characteristic of criminal trials - that is that criminal enactments are applicable only to offences committed within the State unless otherwise specifically provided.

           

            Because of this difference, the position is the same even if the acts in respect of which the petitioners were accused may also possibly be criminal offences against the Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945, in accordance with the order of the Military Commander. For at the hearing before the Court of Discipline these acts will be considered not from the point of view of their being crimes as of their being offences against discipline, in that the petitioners disobeyed orders which were given to them in their capacity as policemen.

 

            We return therefore to the general basic principle set out above following the judgment in Amsterdam v. Minister of Finance (2), that every enactment is territorial in application unless otherwise expressly or by implication stated; that the intention not to follow the territorial principle can also be gathered from the general object of the law as appearing in all its several parts or from the nature of the particular legal provision that is under the consideration of the court. In connection with this point, counsel for the petitioners, as will be remembered, contended that the Police Ordinance not only does not disclose that it meant to disregard the territorial principle but that, on the contrary, it had many sections that supported it. For instance, it is said in section 3 that "there shall be established in Palestine a Force to be known as the Police Force" and section 16 provides that "A police officer, when in Palestine shall..... be considered to be always on duty: he may at any time be employed in any part of Palestine" (now Israel).

           

            This being the case, Mr. Rabinovitch contends that the service of the petitioners by its very nature is confined to the area where they are obliged to serve and it was illegal to have sent them outside that area and having been sent there they did not take with them the special law, the Police Ordinance, that applies to them, and with it the jurisdiction of a Court of Discipline set up under it.

           

            The Attorney-General's reply to this contention is that no matter how the Police Ordinance was meant to be interpreted in the days of the Mandate, the fact that there is now a sovereign State makes all the difference. And from now on we have to consider the Ordinance as authorising the employment for service of the Israel Police Force in all areas, even outside the boundaries of the State, which are in fact under the control of the State and where the Israel authorities are bound to keep the peace among civilians. This is the conclusion of the Attorney-General who considers it to be in accordance with International Law which permits a State to send its armed forces outside its boundaries.

 

            This answer to the contention of counsel for the petitioners does not seem to me to be convincing. It is possible that the "territorial" sections of the Police Ordinance were originally enacted so that the law should be in harmony with the obligations of Palestine owing to its status as a country under mandate. But does this entitle us to breathe new life into these sections to make them fit the changes brought about by the creation of the State, as the Attorney-General is asking us to do ? There would of course have been no problem on this point had Israel proclaimed the Gaza strip to be occupied territory. But the Minister of Defence has refrained from issuing such a proclamation. The question therefore is whether there is any legal principle under which one can consider a policeman who is serving in an area which is in fact under the control of the State as if he were serving within the State itself. I have found no such rule either in our own municipal law or in International Law. The function of the police is of course to keep order within the State whereas it is the duty of the army to preserve the peace against all dangers from without. When a State sends its army outside its borders and conquers additional territory which it occupies without extending its sovereignty over it, it is occupying the territory through its army which sets up military rule therein. (See Oppenheim, seventh edition, vol. II, p. 438). Israel too has acted in this way with regard to the Gaza strip, that is to say it established there a military government from which all other authority was derived. The civilian police also- functioned in fact within this framework, for this force had been asked to operate there by the army, under whose command it was placed. And within this framework it carried out police duties among the local inhabitants. The Attorney-General has contended that the police are part of the armed forces of the State which are bound to serve also outside its borders and which in any case carry with them the prerogative of the State to try them wherever they are. As far as the army is concerned, it is true that this principle has received expression in sections 13 and 14 of the Military Justice Law, 1955, which provide for trial by court martial of members of the Israel Army in respect of military and other offences committed whether '"inside or outside" the boundaries of the State.

           

            But where is the authority for the proposition that for this purpose the civil police are part of the armed forces of the State? Section 51 of the Police Ordinance enables the Minister of Police during a war or an emergency to issue a proclamation declaring that the Police Force or some part of it is to be considered as a military unit; and on the declaration being made certain consequences follow as enumerated in the relevant section of the Ordinance. Such a declaration was never issued in connection with the Israel Police in the Gaza strip. Had it been, it is possible that those policemen who had been sent there for service would have been considered as soldiers also in this respect that they too were under an obligation to serve outside the area where Israel law applies. In the absence of such a proclamation, there was no legal authority to compel them to serve anywhere except within that part of the territory of the State where a policeman is bound to serve in accordance with the Police Ordinance. We cannot therefore consider this as being the source from which the Court of Discipline derived the necessary jurisdiction to try the petitioners whilst they were in the Gaza strip.

 

            But this does not end the matter. They were under no duty to serve in the Gaza strip and had the petitioners refused at the proper time to be transferred there, in my opinion, it would not have been considered on their part as a breach of duty. But nothing prevented them from agreeing of their own free will to undertake this additional service. A policeman may also volunteer to perform a service outside the State. It is sometimes necessary, for instance, to send police officers abroad, to make contact with the police of another State in connection with the investigation of a crime which a local resident is suspected of having committed. A policeman who undertakes such a task does not cease to be a policeman when abroad. I see no difference in principle between such a case and what happened here - except on a bigger scale - with regard to the Israel Police Force serving in the Gaza strip, that is to say in a place in Palestine outside the area where the law of the State of Israel applies. We have not heard that the petitioners objected to or protested against their being sent to the Gaza strip. In their application they say simply that "they went there". It seems that they must be considered as volunteers who undertook to perform a service which they were not obliged to do. But from its nature this was police work. If we come to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of a Court of Discipline is not territorial but personal in character, that is to say that it also exists in relation to matters connected with the behaviour of a policeman, wherever he is, even outside the State, then there is no difference between a policeman who went there under an order or as a volunteer. We dealt with a similar problem - though in another field - in Neiman v. Attorney-General (8). There the appellant, a clerk of the Jerusalem Municipality, claimed that he could not be held guilty under section 140 of the Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936 (Breaches of Trust by Public Officers) because the act was committed in Bet-Mazmil which was outside the area of the Municipality of Jerusalem. In rejecting this claim, this court said (at p. 857) :

 

            "Mr. Meridor was unable to cite any authority according to which an official, such as the appellant, would be exempt from liability if he could show that what he did was outside the confines of jurisdiction of the public body employing him..... The work at Bet-Mazmil was done in accordance with the decision of the Municipality, the way it was done was no different at all from the usual way of doing such things at the Municipality and the second appellant did this work in the course of his usual duties."

 

            And the same can be said in our case: the duties with which the petitioners were charged were ordinary police duties which had to be performed in accordance with the rules of discipline when carrying them out.

           

            We thus come to the decisive question in its simplest form : What is the nature, then, of a trial before a police Court of Discipline - is it connected with the territory of the State or is it per­sonal, that is connected with the man ? Counsel for the parties have carefully searched for precedents dealing directly with this question and have found none. I too have searched to no effect. The Attorney-General has mentioned an English judgment in re A Solicitor (12). In that case the English court was asked to revoke the licence of an English solicitor because of his misconduct in South Africa. The application was refused because the court was not prepared to accept, as the only ground for its decision, the judgment of the court of South Africa which had revoked the licence of the solicitor in that country. But this judgment can also be taken as ruling - although the question was not specifically considered - that had there been sufficient proof before the English court it would not have hesitated in granting the application, although the charge was in respect of an offence against discipline which was committed abroad. Wright, J. said at p. 662:

           

            "I do not say at all that there may not be cases where a solicitor is struck off the rolls by a foreign court when this court ought to - and probably would act - if the facts were brought before it in a proper way and if it could see clearly what it was that the solicitor had done....."

           

            In order to test the nature of disciplinary jurisdiction in the absence of direct authority we can only solve the problem in the light of general considerations and by reference to two opposing principles- the territorial principle and the personal principle - and decide which of these two is more appropriate to the jurisdiction in question.

 

            As I have already hinted, the territorial principle of jurisdiction is strongly linked to the notion of sovereignty of a State over its territory, whereas the personal principle is connected with the tie of personal allegiance existing between the sovereign and his subject. When we base jurisdiction on the notion of the sovereignty of each State within its own territory, it becomes clear that on the one hand the State is entitled to adjudicate on all matters within its territory, irrespective of the persons concerned and that on the other, an offence or some other act committed outside that territory must, as a matter of course, come within the jurisdiction of the foreign State where the offence or other act took place. An ideal division of jurisdiction between States based purely on territorial principles would require each State, in its administration of justice, to confine itself to matters taking place within its own borders and every time a State went beyond these it would be considered as interfering in the internal affairs of another State. (We have seen that this principle is not carried out in practice in its entirety but that it is sometimes mixed with elements having the characteristics of personal jurisdiction which result in fact in parallel proceedings in the courts of two States.) But when does this happen ? When the other State also claims for itself the right to try the persons concerned in the same matter. Every civilized State for example is prompt in punishing crimes committed within its borders and is willing to enforce civil obligations created there. But when the foreign State is indifferent to the same act and does not react at all to it, no clash need be feared between two different judicial jurisdictions. Now every trial by a Court of Discipline is held within the framework of some organisation which is either international or is limited to one State. If international, then it certainly is not confined to the area of any one State and if it is national no other State would have any interest in its doings. In any case no conflict can arise between two judicial jurisdictions. If, for instance, an Israel policeman committed an act which was a breach of discipline, whilst in France, that aspect of his behaviour would be of no interest to France.

 

            Further, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, the Gaza strip is not within the sovereign jurisdiction of any other State and for this reason too one cannot speak here of a conflict with the lawful jurisdiction of another State.

           

            So far I have dealt only with the point of inter-State relations according to which there is no objection to the extension of the jurisdiction of Courts of Discipline to deal with acts that took place outside the borders of the State. But that does not cover the whole problem. For the basic principle is that prima facie all jurisdiction is territorial and before it can be extended beyond the boundaries of the State, one has to show clearly that this was the intention of the law either expressed or implied. I am of the opinion that such an intention can also be implied from the very nature of a trial before a Court of Discipline. As I have said such a trial is held within the framework of some special organisation and concerns no one who does not personally belong to this particular body. Its purpose is to prevent the lowering of the professional standards of members of the organisation. Each such member has special duties and in consequence generally enjoys special privileges, all of which require the upholding of a special standard to ensure the effective functioning of the organisation and the protection of its reputation vis-a-vis others. These rights and duties too are personal to the member of the organisation and they forge a special tie of allegiance between him and it. One may draw in this connection a close comparison with the duty of personal allegiance which is at the root of jurisdiction, based on the personal principle. Here is a description by an ancient English writer explaining why the jurisdiction in a trial for high treason is personal [Foster in Crown Law, quoted in R. v. Casement (13)]:

 

            "With regard to natural born subjects there can be no doubt. They owe allegiance to the Crown at all times and in all places. ...

 

            Natural allegiance is founded in the relation every man standing in to the Crown, considered as the head of that society whereof he is born a member; and on the peculiar privileges he derived from that relation..."

           

            When we divest this conception of its 'royal' apparel does it not also fit the relationship of loyalty, to protect which, trial before a Court of Discipline is provided ? It is clear that such a relationship cannot be subject to any territorial limitation as it is necessary to protect the professional standards of a man who is subject to the discipline of an organisation "at all times and in all places" wherever he may be carrying out his duties. It would be unreasonable to give the law another interpretation whereby a policeman on police duty abroad would move about in a vacuum, as it were, as far as discipline was concerned.

           

            Finally I will answer briefly two further contentions of counsel for the petitioners: First that the petitioners should have been court-martialled for contravening the order of the Military Governor. Possibly they were also liable at the time to be called to account for the actions of which they are accused by being prosecuted before the Israel Military Court in the Gaza strip; but this was not done. The fact that this method was not used can certainly not prevent their being charged before a Court of Discipline for breach of discipline and misbehaviour which the actions themselves imply. The second contention of the petitioners was that the Court of Discipline when trying them should apply, with all its amendments which are unknown to us, the Police Ordinance as it was in force in the Gaza strip on the eve of its conquest by the Israel Army. This contention is based on the orders of the Military Governor for the Gaza District which authorised the Israel Police Force to operate as the 'Gaza Police Force' in accordance with the Police Ordinance with all its amendments made for Gaza. But this law applied in relation to the powers of the Gaza Police vis-a-vis the public when dealing with the local inhabitants. Vis-a-vis the Force the petitioners remained Israel policemen even whilst serving in the Gaza Police and as such they continued to be subject to the jurisdiction of a Court of Discipline to try them in accordance with the Police Ordinance as it was in force in the State of Israel.

           

            I am accordingy of the opinion that the orders nisi must be set aside, and the applications of both petitioners dismissed.

           

SUSSMAN J. I concur.

 

 OLSHAN. P. I concur. I am of the opinion that the question whether a person who is serving in the Police Force can be sent abroad in connection with his police duties, without his own consent, needs further consideration.

 

Order nisi discharged.

Judgment given on February 13, 1958.

 

CrimA 111A/99

Arnold Schwartz

v.

State of Israel

 

The Supreme Court Sitting as the Court of Criminal Appeal

[June 7^th, 2000]

Before President A. Barak, Vice-President S. Levin, Justices T. Or, E. Mazza, M. Cheshin, Y. Kedmi, T. Strasberg-Cohen, D. Dorner, D. Beinisch

 

Application to the Supreme Court sitting as the Court of Criminal Appeals for the stay of the execution of a sentence.

 

Facts: The applicant was convicted in the District Court in Tel-Aviv-Jaffa of two offenses: the commission of rape under section 345(A)(1) of the Penal Law 5737-1977 and the commission of sodomy, an offense under section 347(A) of the Penal Law.  The applicant was sentenced to four years in prison, of which three years were of actual imprisonment and one year was on probation.  In addition the court ordered the applicant to compensate the complainant in the amount of NIS 10,000.  At the time the conviction was handed down, at the request of the applicant’s counsel, the District Court stayed the date of commencement of the applicant’s sentence by one month.  The application was brought before Justice Zamir who determined that execution of the prison sentence imposed would be stayed until a further decision was made on the application.  Justice Zamir transferred the application to the President of the Court for a decision as to whether it would be appropriate to transfer the application to a decision before an extended panel of Justices, and the President of the Court ordered consideration of the application before an extended panel of nine justices.

 

Held: The Court held that it would be appropriate to delineate standards for applications to stay execution of prison sentences of persons who have been convicted and sentenced to a prison term and whose appeal is pending.  The Court detailed those standards and considerations and held that while in the specific circumstances of the present case those standards dictate that the execution of the prison sentence should likely not have been stayed, nonetheless, due to the fact that the applicant has been free on bail for a long period of time since the sentence was handed down, and in consideration of the date that had been set for hearing the appeal, the Court did not in fact order the immediate imprisonment of the applicant. 

The Court also considered, in a preliminary discussion, the application of the Public Defender’s Office to participate in the proceeding as a “friend of the court.”  The Court held that the joining of the Public Defender as a “friend of the court” was to be allowed in this case.

Justice Kedmi agreed with the final outcome of the judgment but added qualifying comments.  In addition, Justice Kedmi disagreed with the holding that allowed the Public Defender to be joined as a “friend of the court.”

 

 

Legislation cited:

Penal Law 5737-1977, ss. 43, 44, 87, 87(a), 87(c), 345(a)(1), 347(a), ch. 6, sections B, H.

Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, ss. 5, 10.

Basic Law: the Judiciary, s. 17.

Criminal Procedure (Enforcement Powers – Arrests) Law 5756-1996, ss. 21(a)(1)(c), 44.

Bail Ordinance 1944. 

Criminal Procedure Law 5725-1965.

 

Draft legislation cited:

Amendment to Penal Law (Methods of Punishment) Draft Proposal Hatzaot Hok no. 522.

               

Israeli Supreme Court cases cited:

[1]     RA 7929/96 Kozali and Others v. State of Israel (not yet reported).

[2]     CrimA 608/81 Benyamin Ben Maier Suissa v. State of Israel IsrSC 37(1) 477

[3]     FH 16/85 Harrari v. State of Israel, IsrSC 40(3) 449.

[4]     CrimA 757/85 State of Israel v. Harnoi IsrSC 39(4) 292.

[5]     CrimA 1100/91 State of Israel v. Jeffrey IsrSC 47(1)418.

[6]     MAppCrim 2161/92 Fadida v. State of Israel (unreported).

[7]     MApp 123/76 Ikviah v. State of Israel IsrSC 30(3) 223.

[8]     MA 24/55 Shlomo Porat (Perlberg) v. Attorney General of Israel IsrSC 9 673.

[9]     MApp 2/52 Locksner v. Israel Attorney General IsrSC 1(1) 169.

[10] Mot 118/79 Richtman v. State of Israel IsrSC 33(2) 45.

[11] Mot 156/79 Kobo v. State of Israel IsrSC 33(2) 63.

[12] Mot 132/81 Pitusi v. State of Israel IsrSC 35(2) 817.

[13] MApp 430/82  Michalshwilli v. State of Israel IsrSC 36(3) 106.

[14] MApp 10/62 Cohen v.  Attorney General IsrSC 17 534.

[15] MApp 183/80 Sharabi v. State of Israel IsrSC 34(4) 517.

[16] Mot 52/50 Maatari v. Attorney General of Israel IsrSC 4 414.

[17] MAppCrim 166/87 State of Israel v. Azran and Others, IsrSC 41(2).

[18] MAppCrim 2599/94 Danino v. the State of Israel (unreported).

[19] CrimA 8549/99 Ben Harosh v. State of Israel (unreported).

[20] CrimA 3695/99 Abu Keif v. State of Israel (unreported).

[21] CrimA 4263/98 Luabna v. State of Israel (unreported).

[22] CrimA 3594/98 Ploni (John Doe) v. State of Israel (unreported).

[23] CrimA 1050/98 Siamo v. State of Israel (unreported).

[24] MAppCrim 6877/93 Ploni (John Doe) v. State of Israel (unreported).

[25] MApp 28/88 Sussan v. State of Israel (unreported).

[26] MAppCr 4331/96 ElMakais v. State of Israel IsrSC 50(3) 635.

[27] MAppCr 5719/93 Forman v. State of Israel (unreported).

[28] MAppCr 6689/94 Attias and others v. State of Israel (unreported).

[29] MAppCr 8574/96 Mercado v. State of Israel (unreported).

[30] MAppCr 8621/96 Kuzinski v. State of Israel (unreported).

[31] MAppCr 4590/98 Sharabi v. State of Israel (unreported).

1. CrimA 7068/98 Hachami v. State of Israel (unreported).

[33] CrimA 9/55 Yegulnitzer v. State of Israel IsrSC 9 891.

[34] CrimA 125/74 Merom, Corporation of International Commerce, Ltd. and others v. State of Israel IsrSC 30(1) 57, at p. 75).

[35] MAppCr 3360/91 Abu Ras and others v. State of Israel (unreported).

[36] CrimA 7282/98 Uda v. State of Israel (unreported).

[37] HCJ 6055/95 Sagi Zemach and others v. Minister of Defense and Others (not yet reported).

[38] HCJ 87/85 Argov and others v. Commander of the IDF Forces for Judea and Samaria, IsrSC 42(1) 353.

[39] HCJ 1520/94 Shalem v. Labour Court and others, IsrSC 58(3) 227.

[40] MAppCr 2708/95 Spiegel and others v. State of Israel IsrSC 59(3) 221.

[41] LCA 5587/97 Israel Attorney General v. Ploni (John Doe) IsrSC 51(4) 830.

[42] MApp 15/86 State of Israel v. Tzur, IsrSC 40(1) 706.

[43] MAppCr 537/95 Genimat v. State of Israel IsrSC 49(3) 335.

[44] HCJ 1715/97 the Office of Investment Managers in Israel and others v. Ministry of Finance and others, IsrSC 51(4) 367.

[45] MAppCr 3590/95 Katrieli v. State of Israel (unreported).

[46] MAppCr 37171/91 State of Israel v. Golden IsrSC 45(4)807.

[47] MAppCr 4092/94 Tioto v. State of Israel (unreported).

[48] CrimA 6579/98 Friedan v. State of Israel (unreported).

[49] CrimA 3602/99 Ploni (John Doe) v. State of Israel (unreported).

[50] CrimA 3976/99 Ephraimov v. State of Israel (unreported).

 

American cases cited:

[51] U.S. v. Miller 753 F.2d 19 (1985).

[52] McKane v. Durston 153 U.S. 684 (1894).

[53] Jones v. Barnes 463 U.S. 745 (1983).

 

Canadian cases cited:

1. R v. Demyen (1975) 26 C.C.C, 2d 324, 326.
2. R v. Pabani (1991) 10 C.R., 4th. 381.
3. Mcauley v. R (1997) Ont. C.A. Lexis 3.
4. Baltovich v. R (1992) Ont. C.A. Lexis 257.
5. R v. Parson (1994) 30 C.R. 4th 169.
6. R. v. Farinacci (1993) 86 C.C.C. 32.
7. Cunningham v. Canada (1993) 80 C.C.C 492.
8. Miller v. The Queen (1985) 23 C.C.C 99.
9. R v. Branco (1993) 87 C.C.C 71.

 

Israeli books cited:

1. S. Levin The Law of Civil Procedure – Introduction and Basic Principles (5759-1999)

 

Israeli articles cited:

1. S. Levin ‘Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom and Civil Legal Processes,’ Hapraklit 52 (1986) 451.
2. Bendor, ‘Criminal Procedure and Law of Evidence: Development of Individual Human Rights in Procedural Criminal Law,’ The Annual Book for Law in Israel (Tel-Aviv, 1986) 481.

 

Foreign books cited:

1. R. Pattenden English Criminal Appeals 1844-1994 (Oxford, 1996).
2. Stuart Charter Justice In Canadian Criminal Law (Scarborough, 2nd ed., 1996).
3. W.R. LaFave, J.H. Israel Criminal Procedure (St. Paul, 2nd ed., 1992).
4. P.W. Hogg Constitutional Law of Canada (Scarborough, 4th ed., 1997).

 

Foreign articles cited:

1. M. Damaska “Structures of Authority and Comparative Criminal Procedure” 84 Yale L.J. (1974-1975) 480.
2. D.L. Leibowitz “Release Pending Appeal: A Narrow Definition of ‘Substantial Question’ under the Bail Reform Act of 1984” 54 Fordham L. Rev. (1985-1986) 1081.
3. M.M. Arkin “Rethinking The Constitutional Right To a Criminal Appeal” 39 UCLA L. Rev. (1991-1992) 503.
4. A.S. Ellerson “The Right To Appeal And Appellate Procedural Reform” 91 Colum. L. Rev. (1991) 373.
5. D. Gibson “The Crumbling Pyramid: Constitutional Appeal Rights in Canada” 38 U.N.B. L.J (1989) 1.
6. T.W. Cushing “Raising a ‘Substantial Question’: The Key to Unlocking the Door Under the 1984 Bail Reform Act” 62 Notre Dame L. Rev. (1986) 192.

 

Other:

1. 8A Am. Jur. 2d (Rochester and San Francisco, 1997).

 

 

 

For the Applicant—D. Ronen

For the State —N. Ben-Or, A. Shaham

For the Public Defender-K. Mann, D. Pinto, D. Ohana, R. Yitzhaki

 

JUDGMENT

Justice D. Beinisch

By what standards will an application to stay execution of a prison sentence of a person who has been convicted and whose appeal is pending be considered?  That is the issue brought before us in this application.

The facts in the background of the fundamental discussion before us are as follows:

1.  The applicant was convicted in the District Court in Tel-Aviv-Jaffa of the offense of rape under section 345(A)(1) of the Penal Law 5737-1977 (hereinafter: “the Penal Law”) and for committing sodomy, an offense under section 347(A) of the Penal Law.  Following his conviction, the applicant was sentenced to four years in prison, including three years of actual imprisonment and one year on probation.  The court also ordered the applicant to compensate the complainant in the amount of NIS 10,000.  At the time the conviction was handed down the District Court granted the application of the applicant’s counsel and stayed the date of commencement of the sentence by one month.

2.  The applicant appealed the decision to this court.  At the time of the filing of the appeal, his counsel submitted the application before us to stay execution of the sentence imposed on him (hereinafter: “application for stay of execution”).  On 1.21.99 Justice Zamir determined, after hearing the parties’ arguments, that execution of the prison sentence imposed on the applicant would be stayed until a further decision was made on the application.  Justice Zamir noted in his decision that in accordance with the accepted policy of this court as to applications for stay of execution “it is doubtful that it is appropriate, in this case, to stay the commencement of the prison term.”

However, the judge decided that it would be appropriate for the application before him to be transferred to the President of the Court for a decision as to whether it would be appropriate to transfer the application to a decision before a panel.  Justice Zamir explained his decision as follows:

“Lately thought has been given to the accepted policy of this court regarding applications for stay of the execution of imprisonment until the disposition of the appeal.  Various approaches have been expressed by judges in the case law. (See, for example, HCJ 3501/98 Dekel v. State of Israel; CrimA 7068/98 Hachami v. State of Israel).  The doubt as to the accepted policy of the court in this matter has drawn in part from the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty; and in part from the customary practice in certain countries.

It appears to me that it is not appropriate to go on with the present situation, in which each justice considering applications for stay of execution makes a decision according to his world view, and the time has come for this court develop a policy that will be able to guide every judge considering such applications.”

In light of this decision, the President of the Court ordered consideration of the application before an extended panel of nine justices.

3. Before turning to the examination of the substance of the issue which has arisen before us, we must give thought to the preliminary issue that has come up during the course of the consideration of the case, which is the issue of the status of the Public Defender in the framework of the proceedings in this court.   After the application was brought for consideration before an expanded panel, the Public Defender submitted an application before the court entitled “application to submit a written brief as a friend of the court.”  The applicant’s counsel consented to the application and the State opposed it.  On 5.19.99, after hearing the parties’ arguments on the matter, we determined that we would grant the application in such a manner that the Public Defender would be allowed to submit a brief.  We further determined that “the decision whether to affirm the argument itself as well as the decision as to the status of the Public Defender in this case – would be considered by the panel in the judgment.”

The issue of recognition of the institution of “friend of the court” in our legal system in general, and the status of the Public Defender as “friend of the court” in particular, was considered in the judgment of President Barak in RA 7929/96 Kozali and others v. the State of Israel [1].  In his decision on this matter the President distinguished between the question of the authority of the court to order the joinder of a person or entity to a proceeding before it with the status of “friend of the court,” and the question of the discretion the court is to exercise when making the decision on an application to join such a party or person.  In accordance with that decision, the authority to join exists, in principle, and the court must examine in each and every individual case – according to its circumstances – whether it is to be exercised, in consideration of the totality of considerations relevant to the matter.  Such consideration relates primarily to the degree of potential contribution which is entailed in the requested joinder against the concern that such joinder would do damage to the efficiency of the discussion, to the parties and to their rights:

“One must stand guard in this matter and ensure that indeed there is in the joinder of another party to the proceeding a contribution to be made to the discussion itself and the public interest.  One is to examine in each and every case, whether such joinder does not cause damage to the efficiency of the deliberation, to the parties to the dispute and to their basic rights…  Indeed before a party or a person is given the right to express his position in a proceeding to which he is not an original party, the potential contribution of the proposed position is to be examined.  The essence of the applying entity is to be examined.  Its expertise, experience and the representation it affords the interest in whose name it seeks to join the proceeding.  The type of proceeding and its procedure is to be examined.  The parties to the proceeding itself are to be ascertained as well as the stage at which the joinder application was submitted.  One is to be aware of the essence of the issue to be decided.  All these are not comprehensive criteria.  There is not enough in them to determine in advance when it will be appropriate by law to join a party to the proceeding as a “friend of the court,” and when not.  At the same time these criteria must be weighed, inter alia, before such joinder is to be decided upon.” (Ibid. paragraph 45)

The issue that arises before us is a question of general importance in the realm of criminal procedure: it arises and is discussed as a matter of course before courts, and by its nature it is relevant to a broad public of accused persons.  Our discussion of the matter does not primarily focus on the concrete facts of the case, but the fundamental question which arises, inter alia, against the background of lack of uniformity in the law in practice.  In discussion of this type, the Public Defender, whose function by law is the representation of accused persons in criminal proceedings, has a clear interest.  In consideration of the expertise and the experience of the Public Defender in the representation of accused persons, their joinder to the proceedings before us may contribute to the deepening of the discussion and its clarification.  On the other hand, joinder of the Public Defender, at the phase in which the joinder application was submitted, will not burden the administration of the proceedings significantly, as it is merely an interlocutory proceeding in the framework of a pending appeals case.  Taking these considerations into account, we felt that the joinder of the Public Defender to the proceedings before us as “friend of the court” was to be allowed.

Claims of the Parties

4.  In detailed and thorough arguments, the parties laid out before us a broad picture, and supported each of their respective arguments with multiple references.  The sum of the argument of the applicant, joined by the Public Defender, is that the accepted approach in our case law as to the stay of execution of a prison term of a convicted person whose appeal is pending (which we will discuss later at length), is not appropriate and requires renewed examination and change.  According to the applicant’s claim, the law has no provision as to the immediate execution of the prison sentence, but rather the legislature left determination of the commencement of the execution of the prison term to the discretion of the court.  This argument relies on s. 44 of the Penal Law, which establishes that a court that imposes a prison term “may order that the sentence commence from the date it shall determine.”  As to the discretion given to the court to determine the date of commencement of the prison term, counsel for the applicant argues that the court is to adopt a “broadening” policy as relates to applications that deal with stay of execution during the pendency of the convicted person’s appeal on the judgment, in a manner that except for exceptional circumstances – which fall within the grounds for detention pending completion of the proceedings – the execution of the prison sentence will be delayed until the disposition of the appeal.  The applicant’s counsel rests his argument primarily on the status of the right of appeal, whether as a constitutional basic right or whether as a right of recognized central importance in our legal system, and on the presumption that immediate execution of a prison sentence, may, as a rule, harm effective realization of the right of appeal.

The Public Defender claims that the law practiced in Israel today in the matter of stay of execution of prison sentences during the pendency of an appeal is not clear cut; alongside judicial approaches which emphasize the immediate execution of the sentence as a board rule, and the stay of its execution as only an exception, there are to be found in the case law of this court – particularly in recent years – other approaches as well, which tend to broaden the range of cases in which the execution of the prison sentence will be stayed while the convicted person’s appeal is pending.  Thus, argues the Public Defender, even when the judicial rhetoric is seemingly strict in relation to the possibility of stay of an appeal, the application of the rules, in fact, tends to be lenient with applicants for stay of execution of prison sentences during the pendency of the appeal.  It is the argument of the Public Defender, in light of the murkiness as to the law that applies in the matter of stay of execution of prison terms during the pendency of the appeal, that it is appropriate to re-examine the issue.  In the framework of this examination, the Public Defender claims, central weight is to be given to concerns of irreversible harm to human liberty if after the imprisonment of the convicted person it turns out after the fact – once the appeal is heard –that the imprisonment was partially or entirely unjustified.  Thus, the Public Defender claims that the right of appeal as part of due process, is derived from the right to dignity and liberty and as such is a protected constitutional right in the provisions of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.  According to the approach of the Public Defender in the framework of the proper balancing between the basic rights of the convicted person and the public interest in immediate enforcement of the judgment, the court, as a rule is to grant applications to stay execution of prison terms until the disposition of the appeal, with the exception of exceptional cases in which there is a reasonable risk of flight of the convicted person from the law, or that the convicted person poses a risk to public safety, or that particularly severe damage to public confidence in the enforcement system is expected.

The State seeks to rebut the arguments of the appellant and the Public Defender.  The starting point of the argument the State brought before us is that it is the directive of the legislature that a prison term is to be executed immediately upon sentencing.  The State learns this from the provision of section 43 of the Penal Law, according to which one who is sentenced to prison will have his prison term calculated from the date of sentencing, unless the court orders otherwise.  Alongside the rule of immediate execution, the legislature granted the court discretion to stay the execution of the sentence to another date, as per section 87(a) of the Penal Law.  The State argues that  the law followed by this court in the matter of stays of execution is stable and clear, and properly balances the various interests involved in the matter, and it is not proper to deviate from it.  According to the State’s approach, the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty has no impact on the matter before us; it is a matter of existing legislation, which is not subject to constitutional review but merely interpretive influence.  Even as to this last issue, there is nothing in the Basic Law  which changes the accepted law followed by this court, according to which execution of the prison sentence will be stayed only in exceptional circumstances; the sum of the argument is that after the conviction of a person criminally, and his sentencing to prison, he no longer benefits from the presumption of innocence and he no longer enjoys the right to freedom from imprisonment.  His liberty has been denied by the judgment of an authorized court which sentenced him, and the question of stay of execution of a prison sentence no longer involves violation of personal liberty which is protected by the Basic Law.  To base this claim the State refers us to the approach of the American and Canadian Law in this matter.  Alternatively, the State claims, that even if the convicted person has the right to liberty which may be violated pursuant to consideration of the stay of the execution of his sentence, then the law that has come forth from this court, as to stay of execution of a prison sentence during the pendency of the appeal, fulfills the constitutional balancing required by the Basic Law.

The   Normative Framework

5. The practice of the law in the matter of the stay of execution of a prison sentence during the pendency of the appeal has developed in the case law of this court from its earliest days.  Tracing the developments in the case law reveals that from the beginning the law developed against the background of what was customary in British common law and this was applied in our system even before the relevant statutes in this matter were legislated, some of them directly, others indirectly.  Eventually, the case law based the law in practice on the construction of the legislated provisions.  Thus it was established that the rule is that a prison term is to be executed immediately and execution of a prison term is not stayed except “in extraordinary circumstances” or if there exist special circumstances which justify the stay.  This rule is anchored in the basic principle of our system, according to which the law is determined at the trial level, in which oral evidence is heard, and in which the facts are determined based on impressions of witnesses.  The level of proof required in a criminal proceeding is high – proof beyond a reasonable doubt – and with the conclusion of the proceeding, once it has been determined that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the convicted person is denied the presumption of innocence.  So too, in our system – unlike the continental system which views the consideration at the trial level and the appeals level as one unit – the appeal is not part of the criminal proceeding; the appeal is an additional proceeding, limited in its scope from the first proceeding since as a rule evidence is not heard during it, and it is a review proceeding.  As background, it must be remembered, that in common law countries, from where we have drawn the fundamentals of our system, determining guilt based on the facts is left to a jury which makes the determination in the trial court.  It appears that this legal structure, according to which one must separate the trial level from the appeals level, has influenced the development of the rule according to which upon the conclusion of the proceeding at the trial level expression is to be given to the punitive result dictated by the conviction.

Relevant Statutory Provisions

6. A number of statutory provisions relate to the matter before us.  Since we are dealing with the execution of a sentence that was imposed on a person after their criminal conviction, we will turn first to Chapter 6 of the Penal Law entitled “Modes of Punishment.”  In Title B of Chapter 6 above,  entitled – “Imprisonment,” there are two provisions relevant to our discussion – section 43 and section 44.  We will bring these provisions verbatim:

 

“Calculation of the Prison Term	43.	One who is sentenced to prison his prison term will be calculated from the day of the sentence, unless the court has ordered otherwise: if the convicted person was free on bail after the sentence, the days he was free will not be counted as part of the period of the sentence.
Postponed Imprisonment	44.	If the court imposes a prison sentence, it may order that the sentence commence from the date it shall determine.”

 

An additional provision which applies in our matter is found in section 8 of chapter 6 above, in section 87 of the statute:

 

“Postponement of Dates.	87	(a)  If a date is established for the execution of a sentence, in one of the sections of this chapter or by the court according to it, the court is permitted to stay the execution to another date.
		(b)  If the execution of the sentence was stayed according to subsection (a), the court may stay it an additional time for special reasons which will be recorded.
		(c)  The court staying the execution of a sentence according to this section may condition the stay on bail or other conditions as it sees fit; the provisions of sections 38 to 40 and 44 of the Criminal Procedure Law, 5725-1967 will apply to bail according to this section with the necessary changes.
		(d)  The court’s decision in accordance with this section is subject to appeal.”

As detailed above, each of the parties before us relied in their arguments on a different one of the three said provisions and regarded it as the relevant legislated framework for determining the date of execution of the prison term.  The state’s construction of section 43 of the Penal Law, according to which, as a rule, and lacking any other determination by the court, the commencement of the prison term begins with the sentencing, is consistent with the construction of said section in the case law.  Thus for example, Justice Shamgar has said regarding the construction of section 43 to the Penal Law, during discussion of a matter different than the one before us (in that matter the elements of the offense of escape from lawful custody were under consideration):

“The origin of the status of  “in custody” is a result of the integration of two significances attached to the sentence that is read to the convicted person: one, and this is the legal one, stems from the provisions of section 43 of the Penal Law, according to which: ‘one who is sentenced to prison his prison term will be calculated from the day of the sentence, unless the court has ordered otherwise…’ 

Meaning, the prison sentence begins to run from the date of the sentence, unless the court has ordered otherwise. . .    According to the simple words and the clear intent of the legislature, the broad rule is that, the prison term begins with the notice of the decision of the judicial authority.”

(CrimA 608/81 Benyamin Ben Maier Suissa v. State of Israel [2], at pp. 492-493.  Emphasis added – D.B.).

 

Similar things were stated by Justice Shamgar in FH 16/85 Harrari v. State of Israel [3] during consideration of the question of when the period of probation begins to be counted when extended by the court.

“The guiding rule which arises from the penal law is that, the commencement and the application of the sentence are from the date of the sentence, and that is, if the court has not ordered otherwise.  This is the provision of section 43 of the Penal Law that one who is sentenced to prison, his prison term will be calculated from the date of the sentence, unless the court has ordered otherwise.  The court may order a postponed sentence (section 44 or section 87 of the law above).”

(Ibid. at p. 454 emphasis added – D.B.)

7.  From the above, therefore, one may glean that, as a rule, the date of execution of a prison sentence imposed by the court is immediately upon the imposition of the sentence, unless the court has ordered otherwise.   

Alongside this rule, the legislature determined that the court may stay the date of   commencement of the prison sentence until a date other then the date of the imposition of the sentence.  To this end, all three statutory provisions that were quoted above are relevant.  The discretion given to the court to stay the date of execution of the sentence is learned from the language of section 43 itself (“unless the court has otherwise ordered”).   A separate determination as to this matter is found in section 44 of the Penal Law which is entitled “postponed imprisonment.”  It appears that according to the accepted  construction  of section 43 of the law, there is a certain overlap between the ending of section 43 and section 44.  (And indeed this was the approach of Justice Shamgar in CrimA 757/85 State of Israel v. Harnoi [4]:

“To a certain extent section 44 is no more than a more explicit statement of what was already implied from the determination in section 43. . .” )  As to section 87 of the Penal Law, its application is different from that of sections 43 and 44 at least in two primary areas.  First, section 87 deals with stay of the date of execution of a ‘sentence,’ not necessarily a prison sentence.  Second, section 87 enables the court to order the stay of execution of a sentence it handed down, even at a date after the date of sentencing.  (For the background to the legislation of this section see: CrimA 1100/91 State of Israel v. Jeffrey [5]).

To the statutory provisions mentioned above one must add an additional statutory provision which is also relevant to the matter of stay of execution of a prison term during the pendency of the appeal, and that is the directive established in section 44 of the Criminal Procedure (Enforcement Powers – Arrests) Law 5756-1996 (Hereinafter: “the Arrests Law”).  Section 44 above establishes the following:

“Release on Bail by the Court	44	(a)  A suspect who has not yet had an indictment filed against him, an accused or convicted person whose appeal is pending on his judgment and is under arrest or in prison, the court may, upon his application, order his release on bail or without bail.
		(b)  The court may order the accused or convicted  person, whose appeal is pending on his judgment, to post bail, even if it is not authorized to order his detention according to section 21 in order to ensure his appearance in court, and when it has done so, the accused or convicted person will be seen as one who was freed on bail.”

 

On the basis of the language of the section, it does not deal directly with the question of the date of commencement of the prison sentence.  But in fact it is directed at the same practical outcome that is likely to stem from stay of execution of the prison sentence according to sections 43, 44 and 87 of the Penal Law, which is that the convicted person remains free for the duration of  the period of the appeal subject to the conditions that were determined for his release (compare this with section 87 (C) of the Penal Law).  Therefore it has been decided, that the considerations that the court will weigh in an application for release of a convicted person on bail during the pendency of his appeal, will be identical to the considerations taken into account in an application to stay execution of a prison sentence until the disposition of the appeal (see MAppCrim 2161/92 Fadida v. State of Israel [6], stated by Justice Bach; and compare: MApp 123/76 Ikviah v. State of Israel [7].

With the exception of section 44 of the Arrests Law, there is nothing in the abovementioned sections of the law, in their language, which relates to the situation of stay of execution of a prison term specifically during the period of appeal, rather they are phrased in a broad manner without details as to  the grounds for the stay.  As a result of the multitude of sections in the law which relate to the matter, applications to stay the execution of prison terms for the pendency of the appeal are considered  by the appeals court in the framework of a number of procedural “tracks” whether as an application to stay execution according to section  87 of the Penal Law and its sections or whether as an application to be released on bail.  As stated above, the considerations that will be weighed by the Court in each of the above cases will generally be identical, although the issue of the relationship between the various “tracks” is not entirely clear.  It is interesting to note that in foreign legal systems, which we will discuss later, the issue which is the subject of our discussion is dealt with in sections of the law which deal with the release on bail during the pendency of the appeal of a person who was convicted and sentenced to prison, and in foreign literature and case law it is generally discussed under the title of “release on bail pending appeal.”  It is also to be noted that most of the initial decisions of the Supreme Court in which the accepted rules for stay of execution of the prison sentence were formulated were decided in applications to be freed on bail during the pendency of the appeal in accordance with the Bail Ordinance 1944 (which was cancelled in 1965 with legislation of the Criminal Procedure Law).  What is important for our purposes is that in not a single one of the law’s provisions which enable the court to stay or postpone the date of commencement of the prison sentence, did the legislature detail the considerations which will guide the court in its decision, including where an appeal on the conviction filed by the convicted person is at the foundation of the request to stay execution.  These considerations have been determined by the courts working within the framework of the authority given to them by the legislature, and we will turn to this now.

The Court Rulings in this Matter

8.  The construction that was given in the case law of this court  to legal provisions which give the court authority, with discretion, to stay the execution of the prison sentence or to release the convicted person on bail, during the pendency of appeal, was narrow.  The rule that was established was that a person who was convicted of a criminal offense, and who was sentenced to prison, would begin by serving his sentence immediately after the imposition of the sentence.  The rule that was established was that the cases in which execution of the prison term would be stayed  due to the filing of an appeal, would be “extraordinary” cases where “special circumstances” exist which justified it.  Among the many references for this approach (hereinafter for convenience we will call it – “the accepted approach”) we can bring the words of the Justice S.Z. Heshin in MA 24/55 Shlomo Porat (Perlberg) v. Attorney General of Israel [8].

“When the court comes to discuss the question whether it is appropriate to release on bail a person that has already been convicted but his appeal has not yet been heard, it is not entitled to ignore the determining fact that there is already a judgment against the applicant which sentenced him to prison, and only in extraordinary cases will the court or the judge hearing the application grant the request.”

(Ibid.).

(see also MApp 2/52 Locksner v. Israel Attorney General  [9]; Mot 118/79 Richtman v. State of Israel [10] at p. 47, 169; Mot 156/79 Kobo v. State of Israel [11] at p. 64; Mot 132/81 Pitusi v. State of Israel [12] at p. 819; 430/82 MApp Michalshwilli v. State of Israel [13] at  p. 107; This approach is similar to the English law in this matter see R. Pattenden, English Criminal Appeals 1844-1994 (Oxford, 1996) [66]112).

The primary reason mentioned in the case law for not staying the execution of a prison sentence during the pendency of the appeal is that with the conviction of the convicted person with the offense with which he is accused, the presumption of innocence from which he benefited until that time dissipates.  In the words of Justice Agranat:

“. . . the rule is, that prior to the conviction the person is presumed to be innocent, whereas after the conviction, the necessary presumption must be -- until it has been decided otherwise on appeal -- that he is guilty of the offenses of which he was convicted, and therefore a person will not be freed on bail at this stage, except under extraordinary circumstances.”

(MApp 10/62 Cohen v.  Attorney General [14] at p. 535).

In other decisions emphasis was placed on the existence of an authorized judicial decision which denies the convicted person's freedom, and which is valid and presumed to be legitimate as long as it has not been changed by the appeals court:

"It appears to me that in principle the determining element in this distinction (between the arrest of a person who has been convicted but not yet sentenced, and the stay of execution of a prison sentence that was imposed-- D. B.) is not  a suspect's innocence or conviction, but rather the phase at which he was convicted and sentenced, meaning the existence of a judicial decision as to denial of his liberty for the period of time detailed in the sentence.  The conviction in and of itself -- without a sentence of imprisonment -- does not constitute a "red line" between the two situations, and does not constitute but one consideration, although a weighty and serious one, in the totality of regular and accepted considerations in the consideration of the arrest of a person who has not yet been convicted."  (MApp 183/80 Sharabi v. State of Israel [15] at p. 519 emphases added -- D.  B.).

The case law mentions an additional reason for immediate execution of the sentence, except in extraordinary cases, and that is the threat of injury to public safety if the convicted person is freed during the period of appeal.  Justice Zemora discusses this in the first case in which the matter came up before this Court:

“The rule is: as to a person who was convicted and punished lawfully, public safety is to be preferred over the possibility that perhaps the convicted person will be acquitted in the appeal and it will turn out that an innocent person sat in prison.”  (Mot 52/50 Maatari v. Attorney General of Israel [16], at p. 416).

Alongside the concern for public safety the case law has recognized an additional public interest which is at the basis of the rule of immediate execution of a prison sentence, and that is the interest that is grounded  in effective enforcement of the criminal law and deterrence of potential offenders. (See MAppCrim 166/87 State of Israel v. Azran and Others [17]).

9.  As stated above, alongside the rule -- immediate execution of a prison sentence -- the case law has recognized exceptions which exist under those "special" or "extraordinary" circumstances in which it would be justified to stay the execution of the prison term despite the considerations that were detailed in previous case law.  These circumstances, in summary, are: when the conviction is for an offense that is not serious or where the circumstances of its commission are not serious; when the period of arrest which was imposed on the convicted person is short, relative to the time frame in which the appeal is expected to be heard, and there is a concern that until the determination of the appeal the convicted person will serve his entire punishment or a significant part of it; when there is a blatant possibility that the appellant will be successful in his appeal because of a manifest distortion on the face of the decision.  Justice Zamir summarized the accepted approach as to the stay of execution of a prison term as follows:

“the rule as to stay of the execution of a prison sentence was formulated some time ago, it was summarized clearly in Mot 156/79  Kobo v. State of Israel [11] and we still follow it.  The main points of the law, very briefly, are as follows:

A) The determining rule is that a person who has been sentenced to prison must begin serving his sentence immediately.  One does not stay execution of the prison sentence except "under extraordinary circumstances" or if there are "special circumstances" which justify a stay.

B) The special circumstances that are sufficient to justify a stay of execution are generally these: an offense that is not serious; a short prison term; a chance the appeal will be granted.  As to the chance that the appeal will be granted, it is necessary that in the convicting decision there is a clear distortion, or that there is a  pronounced  likelihood of success in the appeal.  To this end,  it is not necessary to examine in a detailed and concise manner the facts and reasoning on which the judgment is based.  It is necessary that the issue is apparent on the face of the decision.

Generally, the fact that the applicant was free on bail until his sentence was imposed, the fact that he does not constitute a serious risk to public safety, and that his family situation or business situation are difficult, are not sufficient to justify a stay of execution (MAppCrim 2599/94  Danino v. the State of Israel [18]).

This in fact has been the accepted law for many years, and justices in this Court follow it today as well (see for example, from among the many decisions, the following decisions: CrimA 8549/99 Ben Harosh v. State of Israel [19]; CrimA 3695/99 Abu Keif v. State of Israel [20]; CrimA 4263/98 Luabna v. State of Israel[21]; CrimA 3594/98 Ploni (John Doe) v. State of Israel [22]; CrimA 1050/98 Siamo v. State of Israel [23]; MAppCrim 6877/93 Ploni (John Doe) v. State of Israel [24]).

10.  Alongside the accepted approach as to stay of execution of a prison term during the pendency of appeal, another approach has developed over the years, which tends to be more flexible with the conditions for stay of execution until the disposition of the appeal of the convicted person.  The development of the broader approach has brought with it various grounds to justify the stay of the execution of the prison term and the freeing of the convicted person on bail until the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal, and the breaking out of the narrow framework of postponement of execution as only an exception.  This approach has been expressed in the words of Justice Bach in MApp 28/88 Sussan v. the State of Israel [25]:

“Personally,  I believe that if the convicted person’s chances of  winning the appeal seem good on the surface, and if in taking into account all the rest of the circumstances, such as the convicted person's criminal history and the danger that he poses to the public, there is no special reason for his immediate imprisonment, then the court is entitled to favorably weigh his release on bail until the appeal. . .  I also cannot entirely ignore the fact that it is a matter of a person with an entirely clean history,  that there is no apparent danger to be expected from him if execution of the sentence is stayed.  On the other hand, there is a risk, that if he is immediately arrested, and if he later wins his appeal, a result which as I stated, does not appear unreasonable, then he will serve a significant portion of a sentence which will later turn out to have been imposed unjustifiably.  In my opinion there is also a difference regarding a decision such as this between a defendant who was free on bail for the entire time before the judgment was handed down by the trial court, and a defendant that was detained pending the completion of the proceedings and seeks  now, after he has been convicted, to be freed from prison until his appeal is heard."

See also the decision of Justice Bach in MAppCr 4331/96 ElMakais v. State of Israel [26]; the decision of Justice Bach in MAppCr 5719/93 Forman v. State of Israel [27]; see also the decision of Justice Tal in MAppCr 6689/94 Attias and others v. State of Israel [28] which mentions the decision in Sussan in agreement above).

A different approach to the stay of execution of a prison sentence during the pendency of appeal in comparison to the accepted approach, has been expressed in the decisions of Justice Strasberg-Cohen in MAppCr 8574/96 Mercado v. State of Israel [29]; MAppCr 8621/96 Kuzinski v. State of Israel [30]; and MAppCr 4590/98 Sharabi v. State of Israel [31].  In these decisions Justice Strasberg-Cohen  reiterated that the rule is that the convicted person must serve the prison sentence immediately when it is imposed.  However, the Justice emphasized the need, in each and every case, to balance, in accordance with the circumstances and characteristics, the considerations and various interests involved in the matter of the stay of execution, while avoiding establishing rigid and limited categories of cases in which the imprisonment will be stayed until disposition of the appeal.  This is how this approach was presented by Justice Strasberg-Cohen in her decision in the Mercado case above:

"Indeed, it has been an accepted rule for us from long ago that a defendant who has been convicted, must serve his sentence as soon as it is imposed.  The reasons for this rule are well and good, both in the individual realm and in the public realm.  A person who is convicted and a prison sentence was imposed upon him is no longer presumed to be innocent and the very fact of his filing of an appeal does not reverse things and does not does put in the hands of the appellant a given right to stay his sentence.  As long as it has not been established otherwise on appeal, the convicted person is considered guilty by law and he must pay the price for his actions.  However, a conviction does not constitute the end of the matter.  The law has put in the hands of a person lawfully convicted, the right of appeal, which if he takes advantage of, will put his conviction and the punishment that was imposed on him, under the scrutiny of a higher court and only after the appeal is heard will the court have its final say.  We are faced with a clash between various interests worthy of protection.  On the one hand, the convicted defendant must pay the price for the deeds for which he was convicted and serve his punishment without delay, and the legal system must take care that the sentence is implemented immediately.  On the other hand, society must take care that a person does not serve a punishment of imprisonment for nothing, and that his liberty is not taken away from him when at the completion of the proceeding, he may be acquitted.  In my opinion, it is preferable to stay the prison term of ten defendants whose appeal was denied, rather than have one defendant serve his prison term, that it later turns out he did not have to serve.  However, it is not sufficient to merely file an appeal to bring about the stay of execution of a prison sentence, for if you would say so, then every prison sentence should be stayed, and I do not believe that it is correct to do so.  In order to find the right balance, we have at our disposal tools that we can use to measure and weigh all the relevant considerations and conduct a proper balancing between them."

A more sweeping approach which calls for a change in the accepted rules in the matter of stay of execution of prison terms during the period of appeal, is to be found in the decision of Justice Ilan in CrimApp 7068/98 Hachami v. State of Israel [32].

“I believe that the time has come to review the rule that a person should serve their sentence, even in if they have filed an appeal.  The reason for this is, that after the defendant has been convicted and is no longer presumed to be innocent it is proper that he serve his sentence as close as possible to the commission of the offense and the more the date is postponed -- the less efficient the punishment.  Despite this, everyone agrees that in the case where a relatively short prison term has been imposed, the execution of the punishment is to be deferred until the disposition of the appeal, lest the appellant serve his entire sentence by the time the appeal is heard.  This is also the position of the prosecution.  In my humble opinion the concern here is not just that perhaps a person will serve their entire sentence and then be acquitted.  Even a person who has been sentenced to six years in prison and serves two years by the time he is acquitted on his appeal has suffered an injustice despite the fact that  four years that he will not serve remain.

. . .  

In my opinion, the rule must be that a person should not serve their sentence until the judgment is final, unless there is a serious concern that it is not possible to guarantee that he will appear to serve his sentence or that he poses a danger to the public."

(Emphasis added -- D.  B.)

In addition to the decisions mentioned, which express each in its own way a deviation from the accepted approach, it is possible to point to decisions of the court which do not explicitly deviate from the position above, but in fact broaden the circumstances in which execution of a prison term is stayed.  From various decisions of justices of this Court there appears to be a tendency at times to take into consideration the fact that the applicant was free on bail during the course of his trial, his clean history and other personal circumstances.  Moreover, many of the decisions that were handed down do not give weight to the appeal’s chances of success and do not apply the test of "the chances of success of the appeal are apparent on the face of the judgment."  These decisions to a certain degree changed the normative picture of the situation in this matter as it appears in fact.  The Public Defender tried to persuade us with its arguments and the data presented, that in fact the courts have abandoned the guiding rule as to the immediate execution of a prison sentence, even if they avoided declaring a new policy.  It is difficult to reach this conclusion from the data that the Public Defender presented before us; this data relates primarily to decisions on appeal in the district courts that deal with relatively short prison terms that were imposed in the trial courts, and do not necessarily lead to the conclusions which the Public Defender reached.  However, it can be said that in the judgments of this Court there exists in point of fact a process of greater flexibility in the accepted approach and a broadening of the range of cases in which prison terms are stayed until the conclusion of the hearing of an appeal filed by the convicted person.

Stay of Execution of a Sentence of Imprisonment During the Period of the Appeal-Discussion

11. The first question we must ask is, is there a justification for re-examining the rules that apply in the matter of stay of execution of a prison sentence during the pendency of the appeal?  It appears that a re-examination is justified as described in the decision of Justice Zamir in the matter before us; from the details of the decisions mentioned above it appears that indeed there have been breaks in the accepted approach in the matter of stay of execution of a prison sentence during the pendency of the appeal and a certain lack of clarity has developed in light of the various approaches apparent in the case law of this court.  Moreover, the law  in the case, that was first developed about 50 years ago, grew against the backdrop of British law and developed in a normative environment in which significant changes have occurred over the years.  Among other thing significant changes have occurred in the areas of criminal law and process, the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom was passed and there has been development in the status of the right of appeal.  These changes in the substantive law have practical ramifications, which indirectly impact the matter before us.  Thus, for example, the change that occurred in the  law of arrests with the passing of the Arrests Law influenced not only the fundamental realm, but also increased the number of accused who are released on bail during their trial; a fact which has increased the number of accused who at the stage of decision on an application to stay execution are being denied their freedom for the first time.  This re-examination is necessitated therefore, in light of the changes that have occurred in our law over the years, which justify examining the validity of the law against the backdrop of the normative reality of our own time.  We will turn to this now.

12. As a starting point for our discussion we are guided by the statutes which apply to the matter of stay of execution of a prison sentence during the pendency of the appeal.  As has been said above, section 43 of the Penal Law,  as it has been constructed  in case law,  establishes that a prison sentence is to be executed immediately upon sentencing, unless the court has ordered otherwise.  Decisions of this court in which it has been determined that the rule is that imprisonment during the period of appeal is not to be stayed except in special and extraordinary circumstances, apparently is consistent with the general guideline that arises from the language of section 43 as to the immediate execution of imprisonment.  However, it must be emphasized that the case law that determined the law in this case, was not generally anchored in statutory language.  It can even be said that such law is not necessarily to be concluded  from the language of the statute.  From the version of the section and its legislative placement it can be concluded that it establishes a general guideline as to the date of the execution of the sentence and the manner of calculation of the prison term, and is not exclusive to the circumstances of filing an appeal on the judgment.  In other words, the section applies to the sentencing phase and by the nature of things does not distinguish in the matter of  the date of execution of the sentence between a situation where an appeal has been filed and other situations.    As to sections 44 and 87 of the Penal Law, they too do not explicitly relate to the question of stay of execution of the sentence during the pendency of appeal; section 44 was originally intended to give the court authority to establish in the sentence, a later date for execution of the prison term, while the aim of section 87 of the Penal Law is to grant the court the authority to stay yet again the date of execution of the prison sentence  (see Amendment to Penal Law (Methods of Punishment) Draft Proposal Hatzaot Hok no. 522 at p. 246, an amendment that was legislated as a result of CrimA 9/55 Yegulnitzer v. State of Israel [33], in which it was established that the court does not have the authority to stay the execution of a prison sentence from the moment that a date has been set for the commencement of its execution).  It may, therefore, be said that section 43 and sections 44 and 87 of the Penal Law do not delineate a framework that  limits the courts to stay of the execution of the sentence during the pendency of the appeal exclusively to “special” or “extraordinary” cases.

As can be seen from the above, the provisions of the Penal Law do not relate explicitly to the stay of execution of a prison sentence upon the filing of an appeal on a conviction.  However, when we come to examine the effect of filing an appeal on the date of execution of the sentence, we must take into account the accepted essence of the appeal process in our legal system.  According to our system, as opposed to what is customary in other Western European countries, the appeal in its essence is a separate process of review of proceedings that took place in the lower court.  In the European system, it is the principle of “double instances” according to which the two proceedings are handled as one unit, and the party is entitled to have both instances consider his case both from the legal and factual perspectives, that is accepted.  Because the process is not based to begin with on hearing oral evidence, the appeals court is not limited in receiving additional evidence, and as a rule the lower court does not have an advantage over the appeals court.  Apparently, for this reason, filing an appeal normally stays the execution of the decision of the lower court until the conclusion of the appeal proceedings.  We have already stated that unlike the European system, according to our system, when the proceeding in the lower court is completed the accused’s matter is decided by an authorized court, after having heard evidence and after having examined it by the stricter standard that is required in a criminal proceeding, and with this the conviction phase is complete.  Accordingly, the fact of realization of the right of appeal to an appeals court – which is the court of judicial review  -- does not necessitate stay of execution of the sentence, but rather at that phase it is necessary to express the consequences necessitated by the conviction, including execution of the sentence.  (for the difference between the two systems see S. Levin The Law of Civil Procedure – Introduction and Basic Principles (5759-1999) [63] at pp. 30-33, 185-186; and see  M. Damaska ‘Structures of Authority and Comparative Criminal Procedure’ [70]at 489-90).

Stay of the execution of the sentence is not therefore necessitated by the very filing of the appeal, and is a matter given over to the discretion of the court.  When the application is made at the sentencing hearing it is decided by the court imposing the punishment: when the stay is requested after the appeal is filed, the decision is in the hands of the appeals court.  The court which imposes a prison sentence and decides to stay the execution of the sentence takes into account circumstances related to the defendant and the offense and among other considerations may take into account the need to enable the defendant to file an appeal.  After filing an appeal on a decision in which a prison sentence was imposed, the appeals court has another consideration which can influence the range of considerations which relate to the date of execution of the prison sentence.  The decision as to the stay of the execution of the prison sentence during the pendency of the appeal will take into account, apart from the broad rule as to immediate execution of the prison sentence also special considerations which relate to the existence of a pending appeal on the decision.  Therefore, even if from the statutory clauses we learn a broad rule of immediate execution of the sentence, still the fact of filing an appeal can influence the manner of exercise of the discretion of the court as to the stay of execution of the sentence in accordance with the authority given to it by law, and it may change the balance between the various considerations entailed in the question of the date of commencement of execution of the prison sentence.

13. As a rule, exercising discretion as to deciding the question of stay of execution of a prison sentence entails a balance between considerations which relate on the one hand to the public interest, and on the other, to the interests of the individual involved.  Filing an appeal brings in further considerations which are also related to both public and private interests.  The proper balance of the totality of considerations related to the issue will determine in which cases the convicted person-appellant will begin to serve his sentence immediately, and in which cases execution of the sentence will be deferred until the disposition of the appeal.

There is no doubt that the broad rule regarding immediate execution of a prison term rests on the public interest of effective enforcement of the law.  This interest has several aspects: first, release of a person who has been convicted of a criminal offense may endanger public safety and security; this is particularly so when it is a matter of someone who was convicted of an offense that by its nature and the circumstances of its commission indicates a risk.  Second, release of a person sentenced to prison, may undermine execution of the sentence due to the flight of the convicted person from the law, and in certain circumstances of a pending appeal there may also be the fear of obstruction of justice.  It would appear that these aspects of the public’s interest in immediate enforcement are not in question.  They are learned a fortiori from the law of detention pending completion of the proceedings which enable denying the liberty of a person who enjoys the assumption of innocence where there is a reasonable basis for their existence.  When it is a matter of a person who has been convicted and sentenced, the weight of such considerations intensifies; it is a matter of a person who no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, but is in the realm of a criminal who has been convicted and against whom a prison sentence has been imposed.  This fact can have an impact both on assessing the danger of a person, as we are no longer basing this on prima facie evidence but rather on a reliable  judicial determination that has been made on the basis of a foundation of the more stringent rules of evidence of criminal law, and on the fear of flight from the law, due to the concrete and real threat of imprisonment.

The public interest in immediate enforcement of imprisonment has an additional aspect, which relates to the need to enact effective action of the law enforcement mechanisms while maintaining public confidence in them.  The stay of the execution of a prison sentence may cause a large time delay between the date of the sentencing and the date the sentence is served, during which time a convicted person will be free to walk about.  This has the potential to damage the effectiveness of criminal punishment, as “the more time that passes between the commission of a crime or the discovery of a certain crime and the time the criminal is convicted, the lesser the deterring influence of the punishment imposed on others which may be offenders like him.” CrimA 125/74 Merom, Corporation of International Commerce, Ltd. and others v. State of Israel [34] at p. 75).  When a person who has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison walks about freely just as before, the deterrence of potential offenders may be hindered.  Justice Winograd discussed this in MAppCr 166/87 State of Israel v. Azran and others [17]).

“An incident such as this has an echo, and the release of the respondents, after they have been convicted, has or may have, a damaging effect, on potential offenders, who will mistakenly believe, that even though John Doe was convicted of rape, he is walking around free as though nothing happened.” (Ibid. at p. 810). 

Justice Dov Levin has also discussed the deterrence consideration:

“The starting point is that there is a presumption that he who has been convicted by the court of first instance is no longer presumed to be innocent and must be held accountable for his actions.  An unnecessary delay which is not necessitated by special reasons damages the deterrence aspect of the punishment.”  MAppCr 3360/91 Abu Ras and others v. State of Israel [35] (emphasis added D.B.)

 

See also the words of Justice Türkel in CrimA 7282/98 Uda v. State of Israel [36]:

“It is a matter of serious offenses and there is significance to the fact that it will be said that he who was convicted of their commission will be held accountable for them immediately after sentencing or closely thereafter.”  Moreover, public confidence in law enforcement authorities and the effectiveness of their actions, may be damaged as a result of the release of offenders who have been convicted and sentenced.  Before legislation of the Arrests Law, there was debate in this court whether considerations of deterrence and public confidence were relevant consideration in decisions as to detention pending completion of the proceedings in serious offenses.  But it is commonly accepted opinion that at the phase following overturn of the presumption of innocence, when a person’s guilt has been determined and his sentence passed, considerations related to deterrence and maintenance of the effectiveness of criminal punishment are relevant and proper.  These considerations are also relevant in the framework of exercise of discretion as to stay of execution of a prison sentence during the pendency of the appeal.  Similar considerations, related to deterrence, effective enforcement and fear of harm to public confidence in law enforcement systems as a result of the release of offenders after conviction and while their appeals are heard, we also find in the case law of other countries whose systems are similar to ours.  Thus, for example, in U.S. federal law emphasis has been placed on the element of deterrence in the framework of considerations related to the possibility of release on bail after conviction and until the disposition of the appeal.  This consideration was one of the considerations which was at the basis of the legislation of the Bail Reform Act of 1984 which made the conditions for release of convicted persons on bail during the period of appeal significantly harsher than  prior law.  (See U.S. v. Miller [51]; D. L. Leibowitz Release Pending Appeal: A Narrow Definition of ‘Substantial Question’ under the Bail Reform Act of 1984 [71] 1081, 1094).

In Canada, as in the United States, the issue of stay of execution is legislated in the framework of statutes regarding the release of a convicted person during the period of appeal.  Section 679(3) of the Canadian Criminal Code establishes the conditions for release during the period of the appeal.  Subsection (c) conditions the release of a convicted person during the appeal, inter alia, with the fact that “His detention is not necessary in the public interest."  The appeals courts in several Canadian provinces interpreted the above condition as including, inter alia, the consideration of the impact of the release of the convicted person on public confidence in the law enforcement systems.

“I think it can be said that the release of a prisoner convicted of a serious crime involving violence to the person pending the determination his appeal is a matter of real concern to the public. I think it can be said, as well, that the public does not take the same view to the release of an accused while awaiting trial. This is understandable, as in the latter instance the accused is presumed to be innocent, while in the former he is a convicted criminal. The automatic release from custody of a person convicted of a serious crime such as murder upon being satisfied that the appeal is not frivolous and that the convicted person will surrender himself into custody in accordance with the order that may be made, may undermine the public confidence and respect for the Court and for the administration and enforcement of the criminal law.”  (R v. Demyen [54])

For additional judgments in which a similar approach was adopted see R v. Pabani [55]; Mcauley v. R [56]; Baltovich v. R [57].

It should be noted that in Canadian case law there are also other opinions which emphasize, in the framework of the “public interest” test, the fear of “pointless imprisonment.”  Lacking case law of the Canadian Supreme Court on the matter, it appears that the more accepted approach is the one presented in the Demyen case above: “At this point, it is seen to be an intelligible standard under which to maintain confidence in the administration of justice” (D. Stuart Charter, Justice In Canadian Criminal Law (2nd ed., 1996) [67] 357).  It should be commented that the approach which emphasizes the importance of the public interest in immediate enforcement of the prison term was expressed in the Demyen case above and in other cases in relation to serious offenses of violence.

14. As said, the public interest with its various aspects, including considerations of deterrence, effectiveness and protection of  public confidence in the law enforcement system, still hold when we are discussing the matter of stay of execution of a prison sentence during the pendency of the appeal.  However, where there is an appeal of a decision in which imprisonment has been imposed, the fear of damage to the public interest and the weight it is to be given is of a more complex nature.  Against the considerations we have listed above, there stands the need to avoid irreparable and significant damage to the convicted party due to his immediate imprisonment, if it turns out after the fact – after his appeal was heard – that his imprisonment was not justified.  The severity of such injury is not to be underestimated.  “. . .denying his personal liberty is a particularly harsh injury.  Indeed,  denying personal liberty by way of imprisonment is the most difficult punishment that a civilized nation imposes on criminals.”  (In the words of Justice Zamir in HCJ 6055/95 Sagi Zemach and others v. the Minister of Defense and Others [38] in paragraph 17)  Such an injury is not just the business of the individual but touches on the interests of the general public; the clear public interest is that people who will eventually be declared innocent in a final judgment not serve time in prison.  Moreover, the public confidence in legal systems and enforcement may be severely injured if it turns out after the fact that the prison time served was not justified.  Justice Strasberg-Cohen pointed this out in MAppCr 4590/96 (Mercado) [31] above:

“Indeed as a rule, the accused who is convicted is to serve his sentence without delay and is not presumed to be innocent, non-immediate execution is likely to damage public confidence in the system, however, the acquittal of a convicted person on appeal after he has served a prison sentence that was imposed on him, may damage public confidence in the system, no less so.”

A similar approach was expressed in Canadian case law:

“Whatever the residual concerns which might cause individuals to question their confidence in a justice system which releases any person convicted of murder pending appeal, they would, in my view, pale in comparison to the loss of confidence which would result from an ultimate reversal of the verdict after Mr. Parsons had spent a protracted period in prison." (R v. Parson [58]).

15. Realization of the right of appeal which is given to the convicted person by law is also a consideration which the court must take into account when determining the question of stay of execution of a prison term.  In order to determine the matter before us I do not find it necessary to make a determination as to the weighty question of the legal status of the right of appeal.  I will note only that the claim of the applicant’s counsel in this matter that from the very anchoring of the right of appeal in section 17 of the Basic Law: the Judiciary, the conclusion is to be drawn that it is a matter of a constitutional basic right that cannot be limited except in those cases where there are grounds for detention, is far reaching and not to be accepted.   The question of the normative status of the right of appeal in our system is not a simple question and it has already been determined more than once in the case law that the right of appeal is established by law and is not included among the basic rights in our law, as determined by Justice Shamgar in HCJ 87/85 Argov and others v. the Commander of the IDF Forces for Judea and Samaria [38].

“The right of appeal is not counted among the basic rights that are recognized in our legal system which draw their life and existence from the accepted legal foundational concepts, which are an integral part of the law that applies here, as in the examples of freedom of expression or the freedom of occupation.” (Ibid. at pp. 361-362).

This court in fact did not recognize the right of appeal as a basic right, but the case law has emphasized the great importance of the institution of appeal “as an integral component of fair judging.” (See the High Court of Justice case, Argov above).  In light of the importance of the right of appeal it has been decided that an interpretation which grants the right of appeal is to be preferred over an interpretation which denies it.  (See HCJ 1520/94 Shalem v. The Labour Court and others, [39] at p. 233; MAppCr 2708/95 Spiegel and others v. State of Israel [40] at p. 232).  The Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom does not explicitly recognize the right of appeal.  The question whether it is possible to recognize a constitutional right of appeal among the protected rights in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom has not yet been considered in the case law.  Various possibilities can be conceived for anchoring the right in the Basic Law, whether as derivative of rights explicitly detailed in the Basic Law (in our matter – the right to liberty and perhaps dignity), and whether as stemming from the principle of proportionality in the limitation clause (meaning: defining the violation of liberty, property and more without first having an appeals process, is a violation “that exceeds that which is necessary.”  Compare to the words of Justice Or – as to the right to a fair trial – in LCA 5587/97 Israel Attorney General v. Ploni (John Doe) [41] at p. 861).  On the other hand, a view has been expressed which objects to the recognition of the right of appeal as a right that is derived from the Basic Law, although in discussion of the civil aspect, primarily for pragmatic reasons and taking into consideration the characteristics of our legal system (see S. Levin ‘Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom and Civil Legal Processes,’ [64] at pp. 462-463, and the discussion in his book supra at pp. 30-33).  It is interesting to note that in legal systems close to ours the right of appeal is not recognized as a constitutional right; it is not explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to date has not been recognized as part of the constitutional right to due process.  (See; McKane v. Durston [52]; Jones v. Barnes [53]; W. R LaFave Criminal Procedure (2nd. ed., 1992) [68] 1136-1137).  Although voices calling for a re-examination of the law in this matter have been heard (See: in the United States – the minority opinion of Justice Brennan in the Jones case above; M. M. Arkin ‘Rethinking The Constitutional Right To a Criminal Appeal’ [72]; A.S Ellerson ‘The Right to Appeal and Appellate Procedural Reform’ [73]; in Canada see D. Gibson ‘The Crumbling Pyramid: Constitutional Appeal Rights in Canada’ [74]; R v. Farinacci [59].

As noted above, whether the right of appeal is recognized in our legal system as a basic right or not, there is no arguing its significant weight  in our system.  For the purpose of the matter which we are discussing – determining the discretion for stay of execution of a prison sentence in the framework of existing legislation – it is enough that we give thought to the rule of construction anchored in case law according to which an interpretation which gives the right of appeal is to be preferred over one that denies it.

16.  These are therefore the considerations and interests which are involved in exercising the court’s discretion in the stay of execution of a prison sentence, considerations which relate to both private individuals and the general public interest.  The court must exercise its discretion while conducting a proper balance among these considerations.  In the framework of conducting this balance special weight is to be given to the fear of unjustified violation of liberty.  The right to liberty has been recognized by this court as a basic right of the highest degree, that is to be respected and violation of it to be avoided to the fullest extent possible.  (See MApp 15/86 State of Israel v. Tzur [42] at p. 713 Justice Elon; The Judgment of Justice Heshin in MAppCr 537/95 Ganimat v. State of Israel [43] at 400-401).  Today the right to liberty is anchored in section 5 of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.  The statutory provisions which we discussed above, which delineate the matter of stay of execution of a prison term, were in fact legislated before the legislation of the basic law and thus the provisions of the Basic Law cannot impinge on their validity (section 10 of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty).  However, the normative determination in the Basic Law, which defines the right to personal liberty as a constitutional right and which draws the balancing point between it and the various interests which society seeks to advance, influences the legal system overall; the significance of this influence, among other things is that the court’s interpretive work, as well as any exercise of discretion given to the court in the framework of existing legislation, will take place while taking into consideration the norm anchored in the Basic Law.  President Barak discussed this in the Genimat case above:

“What are the interpretive ramifications of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty for interpretation of old law?  It appears to me that one can point –without exhausting the scope of the influence – to two important ramifications of the Basic Law: first, in determining the statutory purpose at the core of an (old) statute, new and intensified weight is to be given to the basic rights established in the Basic Law.  Second, in exercising governmental discretion, which is anchored in old law, new and intensified weight is to be given to the constitutional character of the human rights anchored in the Basic Law.  These two ramifications are tied and interlaced with one another.  They are two sides of the following idea: with the legislation of the basic laws as to human rights new reciprocity was drawn between an individual and other individuals, and between the individual and the public.  A new balance has been created between the individual and the authorities.”  (Ibid. at p. 412)

17. As said above, the State claims that the defendant who has been convicted and sentenced to prison does not have a basic right to personal liberty.  Therefore, the State claims that the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty has no relevance to the matter before us.  In any event the State claims that even if the right exists the law regarding stay of execution of a prison sentence meets the conditions of the limitation clause.  The general question whether the person who has been convicted and sentenced to prison has a ‘constitutional right’ to freedom, violation of which is subject to the tests of the limitation clause in the Basic Law, is a broad question.  Various approaches may be taken as to this question: thus for example it is possible to argue the absence of such a protected basic right, or to its being a right of lesser weight than other right which are anchored in the Basic Law (see A. Bendor, ‘Criminal Procedure and Law of Evidence: Development of Individual Human Rights in Procedural Criminal Law,’ [65] at p. 500; the words of Justice Dorner in HCJ 1715/97 Office of Investment Managers in Israel and others v. Ministry of Finance and others, [44] at p. 418 and on).  It is interesting to note that the Canadian case law that deals with the rights of prisoners, has recognized in certain cases the violation of the right to liberty of a convicted person serving a prison sentence, such as when there is a substantive change in the conditions of imprisonment or in the rules which apply to release on bail (see P.W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (4th. ed., 1997) [69] 1069; Cunningham v. Canada [60]; Miller v. The Queen [61] 112 – 118).

In our case there is no need to attempt and examine this question to its full extent and in the full range of situations in which it might arise.  This is because the question before us arises in a special situation and it is possible to limit the discussion to it alone.  In the matter before us, it appears to me that the State’s claim according to which determination of the question of the stay of execution of a prison sentence does not involve any violation of the right to liberty is not to be accepted.  The State is correct in its claim that when a person’s guilt has been determined by a court beyond a reasonable doubt, the assumption is that “there is a justification, which meets the standards of the limitation clause for executing the sentence imposed upon him.”  It is also true that the violation of the liberty of the convicted person is derivative of the judgment which has overturned the presumption of innocence, and from the sentence.  However, the complete distinction which the State wishes to establish in our case between denying liberty based on an authorized judgment and the determination of the date of commencement of the execution of the sentence, ignores the fact that the denial of liberty itself which is expressed in the immediate imprisonment, takes place at a stage in which the question of the accused’s  innocence has not been  finally determined.  A judicial judgment by which a person’ liberty is denied is also valid at the appeals phase as long as it has not been changed.  And yet, as long as a final decision has not been made there exists the potential to change the decision at the appeals phase and to reinstate the presumption of innocence.  In this situation, a decision whose significance is immediate imprisonment of a person, in accordance with the judgment which is the subject of the appeal, carries with it, beyond the immediate-physical violation of personal liberty, the possibility of serious violation of the liberty of an innocent person.  The severity of such violation may only be fully realized at a later stage, if, and to the extent that, the appeal of the convicted person is upheld and it is found that he served his sentence needlessly; but the existence of this possibility is the result of a decision as to the immediate execution of the prison sentence.  Against this background it can be said, that if we hold to the view that a person who has been convicted and sentenced to prison has no right to liberty then such a determination is fitting for an absolute conviction.  At the phase in which there is not yet a determination on the appeal of the convicted person, the right to liberty exists as a right but its intensity is weakened in light of the judicial determination which stands as long as it has not been overturned.

Indecision which relates to the question of violation of a constitutional right to liberty as a result of the immediate execution of a prison sentence prior to the determination of the appeal, has also been dealt with in the Canadian courts.  It is interesting to note that there, conflicting decisions have been handed down.  Thus, in the matter of R v. Farinacci [60] the prosecution’s claim – that was argued as part of a discussion as to the constitutionality of the statutory provision which deals with release on bail during the period of appeal –that the statutory provisions which deal with the release of a convicted person during the period of appeal do not violate the convicted person’s liberty, but rather the opposite is true – they advance it, and therefore are not subject to constitutional limitations, was dismissed.  In dismissing the claim the judge of the appeals court of Ontario established that:

“I cannot accept the respondent's contention that there can be no resort to s. 7 of the Charter in this case because s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code is not a provision which 'authorizes’ imprisonment but rather a provision which enhances liberty. There is, in my view, a sufficient residual liberty interest at stake in the post-conviction appellate process to engage s. 7 in some form. ... The respondent’s submission that s. 7 does not apply to bail pending appeal because, after conviction and sentence to a term of imprisonment, bail operates to enhance rather than to restrict liberty, proceeds from the same formalistic and narrow interpretation of constitutionally protected rights. In so far as the state purports to act to enhance life, liberty or security of the person, it incurs the responsibility to act in a non-arbitrary, non-discriminatory fashion and cannot deprive some persons of the benefits of the enhancement without complying with the principles of fundamental justice.” (Supra, at 40 - 41).

On the other hand, in another  decision in Canada the claim was dismissed according to which the statutory section which relates to release during the period of the appeal is not constitutional, while the claim of the prosecution there was upheld that the said statutory provision does not violate the right to liberty at all, as that was denied in the sentence, while the said statutory provision enables the freeing of the appellant:

“While the appellant's imprisonment clearly deprives him of his liberty, the authorization for this imprisonment does not derive from s. 679(3)(c). Rather, the appellant’s liberty is deprived by the sentence imposed by the trial judge. Nothing in s. 679(3)(c) adds to this deprivation. To the contrary, the provision affords a means of arranging the appellant's release. The appellant's liberty interests can only be enhanced by s. 679(3)(c), under which the operation of the sentence imposed by the trial judge may be temporarily suspended. There is thus no deprivation of any right in s. 679(3) (c). For this reason, I conclude that s. 7 does not apply to bail pending appeal.”

(R v. Branco) [62]).

In light of what has been said above it may be summarized and stated that when we come to establish the limits of appropriate judicial discretion for stay of execution of a prison term during the pendency of the appeal, we must do so while paying heed to the importance and the status of personal liberty, and the limits of permitted violation of it in accordance with the principles that were delineated in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.  Justice Zamir discussed this in MAppCr 3590/95 Katrieli v. State of Israel [46], when he examined the guiding considerations in the matter of stay of execution of a prison sentence during the period of the appeal.

“Inter alia, weight is also to be given in this context to the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.  This basic right protects a person’s liberty (section 5) and although it is not sufficient to impinge on the validity of the Criminal Procedure Law, it is sufficient to influence via interpretation, the provisions of this statute as to release from detention or imprisonment.  In this vein, it is to be said that even when the law and the circumstances require denial of the liberty of a person in detention or prison, liberty is not to be denied to an extent that exceeds that which is necessary.”  (Emphasis added D.B.)

18.  In light of the various considerations and interests involved in the matter of stay of execution detailed above, how will the court exercise its discretion when coming to examine an application to stay execution of a prison sentence that has been imposed, until disposition of the appeal?  We will note first that the response of the applicant’s counsel to this question which rests primarily on the decision of Justice Ilan in the Hahami case above, is not acceptable to us.  This approach according to which the very filing of the appeal justifies stay of execution of the sentence, with the exception of cases where there is a fear that the convicted person will endanger public safety or will not appear to serve his term, is far reaching.  It does not properly distinguish between the phase of detention – when the presumption of innocence still holds, and the phase after conviction; it misses the target of the objective of giving effective deterrent expression to penal law punishment and may damage public confidence in the law enforcement system due to the release, as a matter of course, of those who have been convicted of criminal offenses.  It may also encourage filing meaningless appeals for the purpose of stay of the prison sentence.  In this matter we also cannot learn from the customary  law on this issue in the continental systems, where the criminal procedural process, the definition of the tasks of the court of appeals and the degree of its involvement in the determinations of the court of first instance is different from our system.  (See S. Levin’s book, ibid. [63] Damaska article [70] ibid.).

With that, the “accepted approach” for stay of execution of the prison sentence during the pendency of the appeal, in its traditional and limited meaning, no longer stands.  The appropriate approach to this issue must take into consideration and give weight to the totality of relevant considerations and interests which we have discussed which may apply to the various interests involved in the matter and the their degree of intensity under the circumstances and give them the appropriate relative weight.  According to this approach strict rules are not to be established for the exercise of discretion but rather guiding frameworks are to be delineated for its exercise.  The starting point must be that the court must utilize its discretion in a manner that takes into account the public interest in immediate enforcement of imprisonment, still prior to the hearing of the appeal, but must take care, however, that the realization of this interest does not harm the convicted person and their rights in a manner that goes beyond that which is necessary.  As detailed above, the directive of the legislature is that as a rule, a sentence of imprisonment is to be executed immediately after the sentence is handed down.  As we have explained, filing an appeal on a judgment does not in and of itself stay execution of the judgment, but rather the matter is given to the discretion of the court.  Nonetheless, when the court comes to decide on an application to stay  the date of commencement of the prison term on the basis of the authority given to it by law, the filing of an appeal constitutes an additional consideration that may impact the totality of considerations which are before the court, and the balance among them.  The burden is on the applicant for stay of execution of the prison sentence to convince the court that under the circumstances the public interest in immediate execution of the prison sentence  is overridden by the additional interests implicated in the case which we have discussed above.

The relevant considerations and interests will be examined by the court that is considering the applications, without purporting to present a closed list, we will discuss below the circumstances and primary considerations that the court must weigh when considering an application by the convicted person to stay execution of the prison sentence during the pendency of the appeal on the judgment:

(A)  The Severity of the Crime and the Circumstances of its Commission: the severity of the crime and the circumstances of its commission influence the intensity of the public interest in immediate enforcement of the prison sentence.  As a rule, the more severe the crime and the circumstances of its commission, the greater the public interest in immediate enforcement of the imprisonment, in its various aspects.   So too, as to the fear of the danger that the convicted person poses to the public, the severity of the crime of which he was convicted can in and of itself be an indication of his dangerousness.  As to the essence of the offenses which constitute on their own an indication of dangerousness, one can also learn from the laws of detention, according to which being accused of certain offenses creates a presumption as to the dangerousness of the accused (see: Arrests Law s. 21 (a)(1)(c)).  It is to be noted that in American law it has been established by law that a person who was convicted of committing certain serious offenses, such as violent offenses or offenses punishable by death or imprisonment beyond a certain time period, are not to be released on bail or the conditions for release are harsher than usual (see Bail Reform Act of 1984, s. 3143(b)(2); 8A Am.  Jur.  2nd. [76] 283) the severity of the crime and the circumstances of its commission also have ramifications on the intensity of the interest of protecting the effectiveness of criminal punishment and the actions of law enforcement authorities; the greater the severity of the offense and the circumstances of its commission, the greater the public interest in achieving effective deterrence from commission of similar crimes by others and the greater the fear of damage to the effectiveness of punishment and public confidence in enforcement systems if the convicted person is set free.  And note: as to this last matter I do not believe that the severity of the offense needs to be determined only according to the measure of the violence involved in its commission.  According to my approach, even the release of somebody convicted of committing offenses that do not involve severe violence and are not of the type of offenses listed in section 21 (a) (1) (c) of the Arrests Law, but which damage protected social interests of importance, including offenses of far-reaching fraud or corruption offenses that were committed through the abuse of public office, may under certain circumstances damage public confidence in law enforcement authorities and the effectiveness of criminal enforcement.  Such damage is a consideration among the considerations of the court in making a determination as to stay of imprisonment, within the examination of the background of the other facts of the case.

(B).  The Length of the Prison Term Imposed on the Convicted Person: The length of the prison term may affect the court's discretion in a number of ways.  First, when the prison term is brief, relative to the date in which the appeal is expected to be heard, there exists a fear that the convicted person will serve his sentence before his appeal is heard.  In such a case, it is appropriate to stay execution of the sentence in order to enable the convicted person to effectively realize the right of appeal which he has by law.  This approach is also acceptable within the traditional approach for staying execution of a sentence.  And it appears that it is necessitated by the accepted rules of construction as developed in the case law, according to which legislation is to be constructed in a manner that validates the right of appeal and enables its realization.  Second, the length of the prison term imposed on the convicted person may influence the assessment of the fear of flight of the convicted person from the law or attempts by him to obstruct justice; the concrete knowledge of the convicted person that if he fails in his appeal he is to expect a prolonged prison term, may increase the fear that he may flee from the law, this is so even if in the course of his trial in the trial court he appeared for his trial as required.  Third, the severity of the punishment that was imposed on the convicted person teaches us of the severity of the crime of which he was convicted, as generally punishment reflects the severity of the criminal act.

(C).  The Quality of the Appeal and the Chances of its Success: A central question to which we must give thought is what is the weight that is to be given to the fact of filing an appeal and to the chances of the appeal.  For the reasons we have already detailed, we have seen fit to reject the approach according to which the very filing of an appeal justifies stay of the execution of the sentence.  However, it appears that a perspective according to which it is appropriate to make a change from the present law, relates to the weight that is to be given to the quality of the claims raised in the appeal and the chances of its success in the framework of examining an application to stay execution of a sentence until the disposition of  the appeal.  The accepted approach in the case of stay of execution of a sentence leaves a particularly narrow opening for consideration of the appeal of the convicted, when it is not a matter of a short prison term and light offenses.  According to this approach, only conspicuous chances to win the appeal or salient distortion in the conviction justify stay of execution of the sentence during the pendency of the appeal.  This test establishes a high threshold which only in a few cases will the convicted person seeking to stay his imprisonment meet.  Such a test can injure in a disproportionate manner the freedom of the convicted person and the effective realization of the right of appeal; it creates an overly large gap between the level of examination at the preliminary phase of the decision on the application to stay execution of the sentence, and examination of the appeal itself, and increases the chances that serving the sentence will turn out retroactively to be unjust.  Under these circumstances, the means of immediate execution of a sentence may cause damage which is more than the utility contained within it.  It is not superfluous to note, that the test as to the chances of the appeal as it had been phrased in the case law, has in point of fact "been abandoned" in many decisions of this court, and even the State in its arguments before us does not phrase the appropriate rule according to its approach with such narrow language.

The consideration which relates to the chances of appeal is a relevant consideration to the question of stay of execution of the sentence during the period of appeal.  The more that the convicted person is able to show that his appeal is based on solid arguments the greater the justification to avoid immediate enforcement of the judgment before the appeal is heard on the merits.  However, it is not to be ignored that the consideration as to the chances of the appeal is a complex consideration, and assessing the chances of the appeal and its quality places before the judge difficulties which are not negligible.  From the character of the procedure which takes place during the application to stay execution of the sentence it can be derived that the judge does not have sufficient tools to assess in an informed manner the arguments raised in the appeal; the procedure takes place on the basis of a theoretical examination of these arguments and does not generally include studying the transcript and the totality of the evidence that was brought in the case.  Moreover, it is not desirable that a judge dealing with an application to stay the execution of a sentence, will make determinations that may have an influence on the discussion in the appeal itself.  Despite said difficulties, we are not dealing with an extraordinary assignment that judges are unaccustomed to.  Theoretical assessments are not new to the court, and it is accustomed to implementing considerations of this type at the phase of discussion of detention pending completion of the proceedings as well, when the presumption of innocence still stands.  A similar process of assessing the theoretical chances of an appeal, is also familiar to the court when dealing with applications to stay execution of a sentence in civil appeals.  We will note further that  in other legal systems which are similar to ours, weight is given to the chances of appeal and its quality in the framework of a determination as to stay of imprisonment until disposition of the appeal: thus, it is determined by federal law in the United States that the release of a convicted person on bail during the course of the pendency  of his appeal is conditioned on his proving that his appeal "raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal..."  (Bail Reform Act of 1984, S. 3143 (b) (B)).  Courts are split as to the interpretation of this section, but it appears that the common approach is that the convicted person must show that the appeal raises a  question that is at least "balanced" in its chances ("close question").  (See T.W. Cushing “Raising a ‘Substantial Question’: The Key to Unlocking the Door Under the Bail Reform Act”  [75] 198). Indeed, the Canadian Law makes do with the requirement that the appeal  is not baseless or ‘frivolous,’ but in a number of decisions a statutory condition as to the lack of public interest in the imprisonment of the convicted person has been interpreted as including, inter alia, the assessment of the quality and strength of the appeal arguments. (See: R. v. Mcauley (1997) Ont. C.A Lexis 3[56]; R. v. Farinacci [59]; R v. Pabani [55]).

The theoretical assessment of the chances of appeal, in the framework of examining an application to stay execution, is not done by a "mechanical" probability test relative to the possible results of the appeal: such an examination is not possible in fact and it is not desirable for it to be undertaken by a single judge at such an early phase of the discussion.  The judge dealing with an application to stay execution of a sentence is to examine the quality of the arguments on appeal and their type, and assess their  inherent potential to influence the outcome of the appeal.  The theoretical strength of the arguments will be examined against the background of the accepted rules in our system relative to the exercise of review by the appeals court.  Thus, for example, claims by the applicants to change factual findings of the lower court which are based on its impression of witnesses, or reliable determinations of that court, will not generally be sufficient to base good theoretical chances for the appeal.  When the appeal is focused on legal questions, for which it can be determined on a theoretical level that they raise real difficulty, this will be sufficient, generally, to point to an appeal which justifies stay of execution of the sentence until these are clarified.  It is not unnecessary to note that it is not the outer legal dress which is given to the appeal argument which is determinative, but the substance of the argument and the degree of its relation and relevance to the concrete circumstances of said case, in a manner that is sufficient to influence the results of the appeal if the claim is upheld.  Thus,  it can be summarized that when it is a matter of serious arguments, that by their nature and character – if they are accepted – are sufficient to influence the results of the appeal this will contain a significant consideration for justifying stay of execution of the imprisonment until disposition of the appeal, all this taking into account the totality of circumstances of the matter.

(D.) The Criminal History of the Convicted Person and his Behavior During the Course of the Trial: as has already been noted above, these circumstances may point to the degree of dangerousness that is posed to the public from release of the convicted person and the existence of a fear of flight from the law.  This being the case, they may be relevant to applying the court's discretion when it examines whether to stay execution of a prison sentence until disposition of the appeal.  And note: this is not a matter of a consideration that stands on its own, and therefore it is not in every case that the convicted person without a criminal history or for whom it has been proven that he appeared properly during the course of his trial, will be sufficient to determine the matter of stay of execution of a prison sentence.  It may even be said that generally, at the phase after conviction, a clean record and careful adherence to the conditions of bail during the time of the trial proceedings, are not of themselves sufficient to tilt the scale to stay execution of the sentence, taking into account the impact of the conviction and sentence on the assessment of the dangerousness and on the fear of flight by the convicted person, and considerations of deterrence and effectiveness which we discussed above (see paragraph 13 supra).  But in the framework of the totality of the relevant considerations against the  examination of the severity of the offense, the degree of punishment that was imposed and the nature of the appeal, it is possible to also take into account data as to a clean criminal history of the convicted person and his good behavior during the course of the trial.

(E) The Personal Circumstances of the Convicted Person: in the framework of examining the application to stay execution of a prison sentence, it is possible to also examine, in appropriate cases, the personal circumstances of the convicted person.  A judicial decision, whose immediate significance is imprisonment of a person, whether it is a matter of the sentencing phase or whether it is the appeal phase, does not need to entirely ignore any claim as to personal circumstances of the person and as to the consequences he may expect as a result of his imprisonment.  Accordingly, personal circumstances constitute a consideration in the stay of execution of the prison sentence not only under the circumstances of the filing of an appeal.  Moreover, the existence of special personal circumstances, may also influence the weight of the public interest in immediate execution of the prison sentence.  The words of Justice Barak in MAppCr 37171/91 State of Israel v. Golden [46] which were said on the separate  topic of detention pending completion of the proceedings on the grounds of severity of the offense (prior to legislation of the Arrests Law), are appropriate here:

"The injury to the effectiveness of the criminal law and its enforcement, which is caused where someone who committed a severe offense, is "out and about" is tied, by its nature, to the theoretical circumstances of commission of the crime.  The efficiency of law enforcement will not be harmed, if someone who theoretically committed a serious offense is not detained because they are dying.  Everybody understands that the special circumstances of the case justify that even someone who theoretically committed a severe offense, will not be arrested under these circumstances.  Quite the opposite: arrest of the accused under these circumstances may create the impression that the state is taking revenge on the suspect and seeks him ill." (Ibid. at p.  814.  Emphasis added -- D.  B.)

It appears to me that the logic behind these words is appropriate, with the appropriate changes, also when we are talking of the difficult personal circumstances of the convicted person whose appeal is pending.  Indeed, taking into consideration the fact that we are now at the phase after conviction, it is possible that personal circumstances -- on their own -- will not generally have much weight in the decision of the court as to the stay of execution of a prison sentence, as the premise is that the court that imposed the sentence, also considered among the punitive considerations the existence of these circumstances.  However, there may be cases in which it appears on the face of it that this premise does not exist; thus for example, when the personal circumstances which are argued developed or changed significantly after the sentence was handed down.  So too, in other cases due to the special personal circumstances of the convicted person, such as his young age, his difficult mental condition or additional considerations for which the consequences of execution of the prison sentence may be particularly difficult.  In such cases, the personal circumstances will add additional weight to the decision to stay execution of the prison sentence until disposition of the appeal.  We will note that from examination of the decisions of this Court in applications to stay execution it appears that special personal circumstances indeed occasionally serve as a consideration among the considerations of the court when coming to determine applications to stay execution of prison sentences during the pendency of the appeal (see for example MAppCr 4092/94 Tioto v. State of Israel [47]; CrimA 6579/98 Friedan v. State of Israel [48]).

(F) Appeal as to Severity of the Punishment:  An additional consideration that is to be weighed in applications to stay execution of prison during the period of appeal, is whether the appeal is directed against the judgment and challenges the conviction itself, or whether it is a matter of an appeal that deals with the severity of the punishment that was imposed only?  As a rule, in appeals of the latter type, the tendency will be not to stay execution of the prison sentence.  When the appeal is on the severity of the punishment, the balance of the considerations and interests which is before the eyes of the court may change.  In such a case, the conviction itself -- which refutes the presumption of innocence -- is absolute, and  the same potential does not exist for it to be restored on appeal, which we discussed above.  Examining the quality of the appeal and its chances will be done while noting the rules as to the degree of intervention of the appeals court in punishment that was imposed by the trial court, and the question of the relationship between the time expected for hearing the appeal and the period of imprisonment that was imposed on the convicted person.  When on the face of it is not a matter of a punishment which deviates from the accepted punitive policy, and when the degree of punishment that is accepted in similar cases is greater than the amount of time expected for hearing the appeal, execution of the prison sentence will not be stayed except in exceptional circumstances and the burden for showing this is so will be on the applicant.  (Compare: CrimA 3602/99 Ploni (John Doe) v. State of Israel [49], Justice Ilan; 3976/99 Ephraimov v. State of Israel [50], Justice Strasberg-Cohen).

19.  As said, the list of circumstances detailed above does not purport to be exhaustive.  It exemplifies the type of circumstances and considerations that have in them to influence the application of discretion by the court when it comes to determine an application to stay execution of a prison sentence during the pendency of the appeal; these considerations relate to the public interest in immediate enforcement of the judgment on the one hand, and preservation of the rights of the convicted person on the other hand.  The court must determine each and every case according to its facts, while balancing between the different interests which we have discussed above relating to the topic.  It is important to emphasize that the considerations which we discussed are not static and do not stand on their own, but influence each other.  The work of balancing between them will be done after assessing the strength of the various interests and the weight that is to be given to each of them under the circumstances of the case.  Thus, for example, the more the convicted person can show that his theoretical chances of success on appeal are good and well founded, the lesser the weight of the public interest in immediate enforcement of imprisonment, and thus, depending on the matter, will be narrowed to those considerations of danger to the public or flight from the law, which also apply in the law of detention pending completion of the proceedings.  So too, the more it is a matter of conviction of a more severe criminal offense, the circumstances of whose commission are more severe, so too will the burden increase on the convicted person that seeks to stay execution of his prison term to show that there exist circumstances which justify stay of execution of the prison term despite the public interest in its immediate enforcement.

Conclusion

20.  In conclusion, the summary of our position as to stay of execution of a prison sentence during the pendency of appeal, is this:

A.  The filing of an appeal is not sufficient on its own to stay execution of a prison sentence.  Stay of execution of a prison sentence during the pendency of the appeal is a matter for the discretion of the court.

B.  The approach which was accepted in the case law of this Court, according to which stay of execution of a prison sentence during the period of appeal is a matter of an exception which applies only in extraordinary cases and under the existence of special circumstances, no longer holds.

C.  In applying its discretion as to stay of execution of a prison sentence during the period of appeal, the court will consider the public interest in immediate enforcement of the judgment, and considerations which relate to the convicted individual and his rights in light of the existence of a pending appeal proceeding; the court will make sure that protection of the public interest will not harm the convicted person and his rights in a manner that is not proportional.  The type of relevant circumstances and considerations which the court will take into account when applying said discretion, were detailed in our decision.

D.  The burden on the applicant for stay of execution of the prison sentence is to convince the court that under the circumstances of the case, the public interest in immediate execution of the prison sentence retreats in the face of the additional interests involved in the matter.

The approach we propose is not new to the case law of this Court; and it is integrated with a broadening trend taking shape in previous decisions of the court, such as for example in the judgments of Justice Strasberg-Cohen in the Mercado, Kochanski, and Sharabi cases above.  This approach operates to make the accepted approach for stay of execution of a prison term during  the pendency of the appeal more flexible in a manner that will reflect the totality of considerations and interests involved in the matter, while giving appropriate weight to the concern for violation of the rights of the convicted person.

From the General to the Specific

21.  Having drawn the basic framework, we turn to the application of the guidelines in exercising our discretion in the circumstances of the applicant’s case.  It should first be said that the case before us is not of the easier cases for determination, both because of the type of offense, and because of the reasons for the appeal and because of the "borderline nature" of the period of imprisonment.  Moreover, the date of determination of the appeal arrived after the applicant received, in fact, a significant stay of execution during the time that was required to formulate our approach to the fundamental issue.  However, the correct question is – if the matter of the applicant had come to us a priori -- whether based on the guidelines that we have delineated we would have upheld the application to stay execution of the prison sentence until the disposition of the appeal.  I have come to the conclusion  that were I to consider the application and make a decision as to it a priori, according to the criteria we proposed, while balancing among the relevant considerations, I would have tended in the direction of immediate execution of the prison sentence.

The offenses with which the appellant was convicted -- rape and sodomy -- are severe offenses, and seemingly by their nature are the type of offense which point to the dangerousness of the person convicted of committing them.  Generally we will rarely stay execution of the sentence for convictions of offenses of this type, for reasons of public interest, including the enforcement interest.  Moreover, the period of imprisonment that was imposed on the applicant -- 3 years of imprisonment in fact-- is not considered among the short time frames for which it is appropriate to give a stay of execution only to enable hearing of the appeal; at most, it would have been justified to move the hearing of the appeal forward, in consideration of the length of the prison term.  When we come to weigh the chances of the appeal we must give thought to the fact that the notice of appeal is directed primarily against findings of fact and findings of credibility, and does not raise serious legal questions.  Generally such an appeal, on its face and lacking reasons that would show otherwise, does not have a large theoretical chance, even if of course we cannot rule out the possibility that the claims or some of them will eventually be accepted.  To all this is to be added, that apparently it arises from the sentence that the court took into account the personal circumstances of the applicant, and the normative background, and gave them expression in the sentence that was handed down.  There are not in the personal circumstances of the applicant extraordinary considerations of the type that justify stay of execution of the prison sentence in order to prevent special harm that is expected from the fact of imprisonment.  Therefore, if the grounds for the application had been before us under regular circumstances they would not be sufficient to convince us to stay execution of the sentence.

However, when we come to determine the matter of the applicant today, we must also consider among our considerations the fact that the applicant has been free on bail for a long period of time since the sentence was handed down and his appeal may be heard soon.  For this reason, and in consideration of the date that has been set for hearing the appeal, it is not appropriate, at the present phase in the proceedings, to order the immediate imprisonment of the applicant. 

 

President A. Barak

I agree.

 

Vice-President S. Levin

I agree

 

Justice T. Or

I agree.

 

Justice E. Mazza

I agree.

 

Justice M. Cheshin

I agree.

 

Justice T. Strasberg-Cohen

I agree.

 

Justice D. Dorner

I agree.

 

Justice Y. Kedmi

1. Stay of Execution of a Prison Sentence

My colleague, Justice Beinisch is worthy of accolades for the effort invested in preparing her thorough and comprehensive opinion.  Strength to him.

I join the result that my colleague has reached: and the framework of considerations proposed by her as a basis for consideration of an application to stay execution of the prison term against the background of filing an appeal is acceptable to me.  However, in light of the language of the summary presented in paragraph 20.b. to the judgment which states: “stay of execution of a prison term during the period of appeal,” is no longer “an exception which applies only in extraordinary cases and under the existence of special circumstances” – I find it necessary to add a qualifying comment.

The summarizing language in said paragraph may leave the impression, that stay of execution of a prison term under said circumstances is no longer an ‘exception’ to the rule which requires immediate execution of such a judgment.  In my approach, from the substantive-fundamental approach, this is not the stance which is necessitated by the clarification undertaken by my colleague in this matter in her judgment; and does not sit well with imposing the burden of persuasion – as to existence of circumstances which justify stay of execution on the applicant, as necessitated by the language of paragraph 20.d. of the summary.

Reading the judgment teaches me at least, that from the fundamental perspective the law and the case law in the following two areas have stayed as they are.  One – and this is the primary one – that based on the written law, the rule is that a prison term is to be executed immediately upon imposition, unless there exist grounds which justify staying its execution; when the individual seeking the stay, bears the burden of persuasion of the court as to the existence of the grounds.  And the second – whose practical significance does not fall below that of its predecessor – that the central consideration for justifying deviation from the said rule, is contained in the chances of the appeal’s success.  I have also learned from the judgment: that the specific secondary considerations which are grounded in the special circumstances of a said case – that were developed in this context in the case law, have also been left as is; and there is no basis for the argument heard lately in courts according to which: the provisions of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, undermine the basis from the existing law in the matter of stay of execution and necessitate establishing an innovative approach, at the basis of which stands the constitutional right to personal liberty.

The change presented in the judgment, is, in my view, a change in the policy of the application of the existing rule; as opposed to a conceptual change which establishes a new rule.  To this character of the change – with which, as said above I agree – I found explicit expression in the words of my colleague according to which: the change “relates to the weight that is to be given to the quality of the arguments raised in the appeal and the chances of its success”; in a manner that “The more that the convicted person is able to show that his appeal is based on solid arguments the greater the justification to avoid immediate enforcement of the judgment.”  Therefore: we do not have a fundamental revolution here, rather – clarification of the proper application of the rule already existing for us according to which: from now on the threshold of requirements for stay of execution, is no longer as high as was to be understood from decisions given in the past in this matter, but lower and more flexible.

In summary, in my view – and in this I differ from the conclusion – there are two guidelines necessitated by the judgment: first – there is no room for the approach which says that “only blatant chances for success on appeal or a manifest distortion on the face of the conviction, justify stay of execution of the prison sentence during the pendency of the appeal”; and second – the judge considering the application must examine “the quality of the arguments on appeal and their type to assess the potential entailed in them to influence the results of the appeal.”

2. Joining a Party to the Proceeding as a “Friend of the Court”

Granting the Public Defender’s application to join the discussion as a “friend of the court” in the case before us, is not in line with my view in the matter.  Here are a number of comments which reflect, fundamentally, my view on the subject.

The inherent authority of the court to join a “friend” to the discussion is an exception to the character of the judicial proceeding which is customary here.  It is proper therefore to take care to make use of this authority in the rarest of cases, when the circumstances justify not only deviation from the rule, but necessitate it.  The fact that the “friend”  has the power to offer the court “assistance” in the solution of the legal problem before us, does not constitute, on its own, a sufficient basis for inviting a “friend” to join the discussion.  For it we say this, the “friend” will become the “legal helper “of the court; and in my view this is not the purpose of the existence of this institution.  In our system, the court copes with “legal issues” with the help of the “natural” parties who appear before it; when at the top of their priorities – and this is particularly so of defense attorneys – stand the accused and not consideration of the analytical-fundamental legal issue, which relates to the totality of accused or others involved in the criminal act which is the subject of the discussion.  The court does not need offers of professional legal help from the broad public; and particularly not from those who have an interest in promoting one solution or another to a problem that is to be determined in the discussion taking place before it.

As a rule, therefore, it is appropriate, in my view, to limit the invitation of a “friend,” to circumstances of “procedural necessity,” meaning: to circumstances in which the involvement of the “friend” is necessary to ensure the existence of a proper and fair discussion in the matter of the accused standing trial; as opposed to circumstances in which “friends” seek to present their own positions in the matter under discussion.  The friend is indeed the friend of the Court; however, from a practical standpoint, he is the friend of the accused who is in distress. In the case before us, the application of the Public Defender to be joined to the discussion as a “friend” of the court did not come against the background of coming to the aid of a defendant in distress in order to ensure a fair trial in his matter; but rather, against the background of its desire to advance its fundamental position in the legal issue that has been placed by the parties before the court.  In fact, the Public Defender seeks to join itself to the discussion as the “friend of all accused,” all of them; and this so that it will have the opportunity to convince the court of the justness of a judicial policy which appears to it to be consistent with “rights of the accused.”  This is not the end  to which the Public Defender was established; and in any event, this is not the purpose of the existence of the institution of the Court.

In summary: in my view, the institution of the Public Defender was established to ensure legal representation for the accused, when circumstances exist as established in the law; and is not assigned with the advancement of the interests of all defendants as such.  In any event, even if it was assigned the task of protecting the rights of accused in general, this is not sufficient to grant it the status of “friend of the court”; and to prefer it over any other organization that sets as its goal to advance the interests of others “involved” in the criminal proceeding, such as: the entities handling the protection of rights of the victims of the offenses.  It is appropriate that advancement of the rights of all accused be done elsewhere and not in the framework of the consideration of the matter of a given accused person.

Therefore, the application to stay execution of the prison sentence is granted as per the judgment of the Hon. Justice Beinisch.

 

4 Sivan 5760

June 7, 2000

 

 

 

 

 

Petition granted.

30 Sivan 5766.

26 June 2006.

 

F.H. 5/63

 

           

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

v.

DANI WEIGEL

 

 

In the Supreme Court sitting as a Court of Criminal Appeal

[October 31, 1963]

Before Olshan P., Berinson J., Cohn J., Manny J. and Halevi J.

 

 

 

Construction of statute - prostitution offences - mandatory imprisonment - exclusion of probation - Penal Law Amendment (Prostitution Offences) Law, 1962, sec. 10-Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1944, sec. 3 (2).

 

            The respondent was convicted at first instance of being a procurer under section 1(b) of the Penal Law Amendment (Prostitution Offences) Law, 1962, but owing to the special circumstances of the case he was not given a prison sentence but put on probation. An appeal to the Supreme Court having failed, the Attorney-General applied for a Further Hearing* regarding the construction of the said section 10 in the light of section 3 (2) of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1944. The sole issue was whether a person convicted under the Law must be sentenced to imprisonment or may instead be put on probation.

           

Held by a majority (1) An "offence punishable by imprisonment or fine" to which the Probation Ordinance applies is descriptive of the kind of offence for which probation is available. Such an offence does not cease to be of that kind if the penalty is expressly mandatory. "Punishable" is not restrictive so as to exclude a mandatory penalty.

 

(2) A section of the Law under which "a penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed" is intended (upon sentencing) to exclude a penalty as the sole penalty which is not imprisonment. Probation as such is not a penalty and therefore falls outside the ambit of the section.

 

(3) To oust existing sentencing powers and restrict the rights of the individual, particularly in criminal matters, express statutory provision is necessary. Section 10 contains such an express provision as regards conditional imprisonment but not as regards probation.

 

(4) Probation is a method of treatment alternative to imprisonment, intended to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders. Ever since its introduction it has not conflicted with but complemented imprisonment

 

(5) The cases of prostitution offences in which the courts will direct probation rather than impose imprisonment are very rare. Indeed it would defeat section 10, if they did so to any appreciable extent.

 

Israel cases referred to:

 

(1)       Cr.A. 69/63-Attorney-General v.Dani Weigel (1963) 17 P.D. 712.

(2)       Cr.A. 26/55-Rahel and Yaakov Shakraji v. Attorney-General (1955) 9 P.D. 378.

(3)       Cr.A. 44/52-Kassem Hasin Diab v. Attorney-General (1952) 6 P.D. 922.

(4)       H. C. 186/62- B. Veider v. Minister of the lnterior and others (1962) 16 P.D. 1547.

(5)       Cr.A. 38/61-Moshe ben David Yitzhak v. Attorney-General (1962) 16 P.D. 514.

(6)       Cr.A. 155/59-Yaakov Darai  v. Attorney-General (1960) 16 P.D. 233.

(7)       Cr.A. 24/55-Attorney-General v. Barukh Salmander and others (1954) 8 P.D. 474.

(8)       Cr.A. 558/62-Morris Rabo v. Attorney-General (1963) 17 P.D. 162.

(9)   Cr.A.-234/53 Tel Aviv-Yafo Attorney-General v. Avraham ben Yitzhak HaGoel (1955) 11 P.M. 84.

 

English case referred to:

 

(10)     R. v. Parry and others (1952) 2 All E.R. 1179.

 

Z. Bar-Niv, State Attorney, for the appellant.

B. Shagia for the respondent.

 

OLSHAN P.               The sole issue before us is the construction of section 10 of the Penal Law Amendment (Prostitution Offences) Law, 1962, in the light of section 3 (2) of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance").

 

  Sections 1 and 3 of the said Law define various prostitution offences and prescribe the penalties therefor by the following formulae:

           

"Shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years" (sections 1, 2 and 5);

 

"shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of three (five) years"

(section 9);

 

"shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of seven years" (section 3).

 

Then comes section 10 which provides:

 

"Where a person has been convicted of an offence under section 1, 2 or 3 of this Law, a penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed upon him, either as the sole penalty or in conjunction with another penalty, but conditional imprisonment shall not be imposed upon him."

 

            In Attorney-General v Weigel (1), the subject of the present hearing, a majority of the judges were of the opinion that section 10 does not prevent the court from applying section 3 (2) of the Ordinance which generally speaking empowers the court, in the event of a person being punishable with imprisonment or fine, to make a probation order instead of sentencing him. Relying on the phrase "shall be imposed" in section 10, the judge in the minority had no doubt that the section places a duty on the court to impose a sentence of imprisonment, either as a sole penalty or in conjunction with another penalty, and that the court is commanded by the legislature, where a person is convicted under section 1, 2 or 3, to impose a penalty and may not let him go free without any penalty, that is to say, that it is impossible to put him on probation in place of imposing a penalty.

           

            According to the interpretation given by the majority therefore the court must first consider in the light of section 3 (2) of the Ordinance whether or not any penalty is to be imposed and only if it thinks that a penalty should be imposed must it be imprisonment. The minority view was that where a person is convicted of a prostitution offence under section 1, 2 or 3 the court is not free to consider whether or not to impose a penalty but is commanded to impose the penalty of imprisonment.

           

            After hearing counsel representing the parties, I have reached the conclusion that the law is with the minority judge. The submissions of Mr. Bar-Niv, the State Attorney, appeal to me for the following reasons.

           

 (1) The words "shall be imposed" appear to me to be in the imperative mood. A distinction must here be made between "imprisonment shall be imposed" and "shall be liable to imprisonment"; in all the sections of the Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936, the penalty-fixing formula is "is liable to" and only in one section "shall be sentenced" (cf. sections 49, 50, 213 and many others together with section 215 before amendment). Ever since the establishment of the State, whenever the first above formula was intended the legislature employed the words "shall be liable to imprisonment" and whenever the second was intended it used the words "the court shall impose" or "shall be imposed".

 

            Where "is liable to" occurs, the convicted person may be punished with imprisonment and the question of its length will only arise when the court comes to the conclusion that a probation order should not be made in place of imposing a sentence. Were the majority's interpretation of section 10 to be accepted, the legislature would not have needed to use the words "shall be imposed" and it could have adopted the formula "he shall be liable...". Section 10 would also then have been unnecessary.

           

            Having found it proper to use the "shall be imposed" formula in section 10 instead of the "shall be liable" formula in section 1, 2 and 3 of the Law, then - and this is a canon of interpretation - the legislature is not to be assumed to have done so inadvertently. According to the interpretation proposed (by the respondent) we must ignore the words "shall be imposed" and read in place thereof "shall be liable".

           

(2) According to that interpretation also, the opening words "Where a person has been convicted..." must be read as if they said something like "Where a penalty has been imposed under section 1,2 or 3, the penalty shall be imprisonment... but conditional imprisonment shall not be imposed". But significance attaches to the words "Where a person has been convicted". They instruct the court what to do with the defendant after conviction, that is, after conviction a penalty is to be imposed and he is not to be allowed to go free without penalty. We are not at liberty to ignore the legislature's formula and replace it with another consistent with the said interpretation.

 

(3) Why the legislature found it right to add the words "but conditional imprisonment shall not be imposed" but not also "no probation order shall  be made", the answer, it seems to me, is that the purpose of the section is to prescribe the obligatory nature of the penalty from among the various penalties found in our law, such as fines, conditional imprisonment and others. It was necessary to exclude conditional imprisonment expressly because according to Shakraji v Attorney-General (2) imprisonment by itself includes conditional imprisonment. Had the legislature not excluded conditional imprisonment a court could comply with section 10 by imposing the latter-a course not welcome to the legislature. On the other hand, a probation order is not a penalty; section 3 (2) of the Ordinance says that "the court may, in lieu of sentencing him, make a probation order". Hence, the court being bound to impose the penalty of imprisonment, it was not essential to mention the Ordinance which enables relief from penalty.

 

(4) Purposively there is no great difference between a probation order after conviction and conditional imprisonment. The object of a probation order was explained in the judgment of my honourable friend, Berinson J., in Weigel (1) at 719, and I have nothing to add. It seems to me that the imposition of conditional imprisonment is also founded on the belief that if the defendant is given the opportunity, he will mend his ways and refrain from his law-breaking. Upon the enactment of the Penal Law Amendment (Modes of Punishment) (Amendment No. 5) Law, 1963, the identity of the two drew even closer (apart from supervision by a probation officer). Section 7 (4) (b) and (5) (b) provide that if a probationer is convicted of another offence during the period of probation the court may sentence him for the offence for which he was placed on probation. That means that exemption from penalty and placing on probation are subject to the possibility of being sentenced for the first offence, if a breach of the probation order occurs or another offence is committed during probation. According to sections 18D and 18F added in 1963, when a further offence is committed, the court is not bound to activate the conditional imprisonment but may extend it for an additional period. In activating the conditional imprisonment, the court may also order that the sentences be concurrent. Conditional imprisonment is thus directed to those instances where there is a belief or expectation that its imposition instead of actual imprisonment will help the defendant to mend his ways. That belief and expectation exist when a probation order is made. I do not however say that this identity of purpose should be decisive in interpreting section 10. If it is clear from this section that the legislature directed the court to impose a term of imprisonment upon an offender convicted under sections 1, 2 and 3, since in spite of its high purpose, the imposition of conditional imprisonment has, on any view, also been forbidden by the legislature.

 

(5) In association with the opening words "Where a person has been convicted", the marginal heading to section 10, "Mandatory imprisonment", means that once convicted of an offence under sections 1, 2 or 3, an obligation arises to impose imprisonment. In general, where the section of a statute is clear, there is no need to refer to the marginal heading; only those who plead that the meaning is obscure will need to do so. In my judgment no such necessity occurs here, but if it does, it supports the conclusion drawn by the minority judge. The question which arises in connection with this submission is the extent to which the marginal heading is part of the law. In Diab v. Attorney-General (3) Silberg J. indicated (at 926 and 928) the difference that exists in this regard between England and ourselves. It has long been normal in England to embellish a statute with headings and marginal headings after it has been adopted by the legislature. Silberg J. held, after comparing Mandatory legislation, that "there is nothing to prevent us from obtaining 'interpretative inspiration' from the headings". He said

 

"We see therefore that everything revolves round the cardinal question whether these headings and 'embellishments' have or have not been brought to the attention of and approved by the legislature, whether they have or have not received official approval. The traditional English view is that for Parliament there is only the archaic statutory roll which leads the reader on without name or description, without marginal headings and punctuation, and anything which it does not or need not include is not part of the statute, a kind of incidental nugatory addition by 'irresponsible' people who have no hand in the law-making of the legislature".

 

The question is therefore what is the situation with regard to Israeli legislation. When a bill is presented to the Knesset, it includes marginal headings. That may be seen from the copies before the Knesset at the second and third readings... . In the bill of the Law so presented, section 10 had the marginal heading "No penalty of a fine alone" and the words "but conditional imprisonment shall not be imposed upon him" did not appear in the body of the section. During the debate the Minister of Justice mentioned that there were lighter penalties as well as probation orders and he proposed that the section be deleted. Others objected to deletion and suggested that the above words should be added and their suggestion was accepted. The Law as adopted and then published contained section 10 in its present form. If the Law in the second and third reading contained marginal headings, it is to be assumed that the value of the heading we are concerned with was the same as that of the others. I do not need to lay down any hard and fast rule as to whether or not the marginal headings are part of the Law since there are decisions on the question in respect of Israeli legislation. In Voider v. Minister of the Interior (4) it was said (at 1551) that

 

"There is no need to deal with the question whether or not marginal headings are part of the Law, since in any event no authority was cited to show that even if they are not, some bar exists against taking them into account when considering the object of the section in connection with its interpretation."

 

In Yitzhak v. Attorney-General (5) the court said (at 523) that

 

"Although possibly sometimes - when the language is not plain enough and ambiguous - headings may help, it is quite a different matter to base on them an additional offence having no connection at all with the clear definition given in the body of the section."

 

It seems to me that here the marginal heading certainly does not help respondent's counsel in his endeavour to replace "shall be imposed" with "shall be liable", or to introduce before "shall be imposed upon him" the words "upon being sentenced".

 

            In Darai v. Attorney-General (6) the appellant was convicted of an attempt to unlawfully cause the death of a person under section 222 of the Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936. Counsel argued that the prosecution must prove "malice aforethought" as in murder and he relied upon the marginal heading "Attempt to murder". That is, he tried to read into the section the element of "malice aforethought" in view of the word "murder" in the heading. He did not succeed. In the case before us indeed the marginal heading is at one with the provisions of the section and not in conflict. Hence words which do not appear therein are not to be introduced.

           

 (6) The Law relating to assaults on policemen, where a minimum term of imprisonment is also provided, has been cited at length. In Attorney-General v. Salmander (7) this Court decided that that Law is lex specialis and its provisions set aside, implicitly if not expressly, the general provisions contained in the Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936, in as far as the two sets of provisions are inconsistent. (The problem there was whether it is possible to impose on an offender convicted under the said Law a fine according to section 42 (1a) or a recognizance to keep the peace according to section 45 of the Criminal Code Ordinance.) It appears to me that the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1944, also contains general provisions whilst the Law concerning prostitution is lex specialis. The former was enacted at a time when there were no laws prescribing "mandatory imprisonment". Accordingly, upon the enactment of a special Law on prostitution, section 3 (2) of the said Ordinance must be read subject to this special Law. If it patently emerges from the wording of section 10, in the context of the other sections, that upon a conviction for prostitution the offender receives mandatorily a prison sentence, it cannot be argued that the section must be treated as containing something which it does not contain, only because the legislature did not expressly exclude the application of section 3 (2) of the Probation Ordinance, particularly when this special Law deals with the imposition of penalties whereas the Ordinance deals with probation which is not a penalty.

 

            In Salmander (7) this Court held that the minimum imprisonment prescribed is a penalty which cannot be reduced, that is, it is mandatory, notwithstanding the use of "shall be liable" (and not "shall be imposed"). The meaning of "shall be liable" in the Law there is that an offender may be punished by imprisonment up to the prescribed maximum but must be punished with the minimum term of imprisonment.

           

            In view of the decision in Salmander we must say, and we may not ignore the fact, that the question whether the offender may be held free of all penalty and be put on probation according to the Ordinance was not raised in this appeal. Relying on Attorney-General v. HaGoel (9) - that the provisions of the Law relating to assaults on policemen do not prevent making a probation order instead of imposing a penalty - one may say that "shall be liable" to a minimum term of imprisonment (as obligatory) becomes operative only after the court takes the view that a probation order is not to be made in place of imposing a penalty, since this Law does not employ the language of section 10 ("Where a person has been convicted... shall be imposed"). There is no need to take up any position on the merits of the argument itself.

 

(7) Section 1 of the Penal Law Revision (Abolition of the Death Penalty for Murder) Law, 1954, abolishes the death penalty for murder and provides that "Where a person has been convicted of murder, the court shall impose the penalty of imprisonment for life, and only that penalty". Here everyone, other than respondent's counsel who must differ if he is to be consistent, agrees that the possibility of making a probation order instead of imposing the penalty is excluded. The argument here is, however, that that is because of the addition of "and only that penalty". This argument, it seems to me, is groundless. If a probation order is not a penalty, then the words cited do not form a provision excluding probation as an alternative to imposing the penalty. Consistently with the suggested interpretation of section 10, this section would also have to be read as if providing "Where a person has been convicted of murder, and the court is of the opinion that he is not to be exempted from penalty and put on probation, the court shall impose the penalty of imprisonment for life, and only that penalty". That is, if a penalty is imposed it must only be life imprisonment. It follows that there is no connection between the words added and the prohibition against making a probation order. The prohibition stems from the words "Where a person has been convicted... the court shall impose", which is similar to the language used by the legislature in section 10, and not from the words "and only that penalty". If the fact that probation has no place in murder is not disputed, then I see no justification for adopting a different interpretation in section 10.

 

(8) As I have said, "shall be liable" is generally used by the Israeli legislature in place of the Mandatory "is liable" and "shall be imposed upon him" in place of "shall be sentenced". That there is a difference in meaning between the two phrases used by the Israeli legislature is not to be disputed, and I have not heard of any other meaning attributed to "shall be imposed upon him" to distinguish it from "shall be liable". Prostitution offences were specified in many of the sections of the Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936. In treating some of these offences with particular stringency because they are increasingly plaguing the country, the legislature repealed the sections of the Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936, and replaced them with the Law in question, as lex specialis. In this Law section 10 is devoted to the offences mentioned in sections 1, 2 and 3. Although the penalties for offences under sections 5. 6 and 9 were increased the normal course was followed and words of command or mandate were not employed. With regard to these latter offences nothing was said limiting the discretion of the court in choosing the penalty or even in making a probation order. The intention of the legislature, it seems to me, is thus clear. What is involved is the principle of strict construction in favour of the offender, and this principle is not impaired since any other interpretation of section 10 is artificial and cannot be sustained without introducing words which the section does not contain.

 

(9) Assuming that after enacting the Probation of Offenders Ordinance the Mandatory legislator had amended section 215 of the Criminal Code Ordinance by providing that "upon conviction shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life", in my judgment there would have been no room for the argument that a probation order could be made instead of life imprisonment. The Probation Ordinance is not a "constitutional" law in the light of which all other law is reviewed. That being so, the two Laws must be reconciled, having their respective legislative intent in mind. Plainly, the 1944 Probation Ordinance does not embrace any intention to give section 3 (2) an entrenched position for the future. Had that been the intention, it would have been wholly invalid from the viewpoint of constitutional law. It is therefore to be understood that as regards the future the intention of the Ordinance was that use of section 3 (2) is subject to every new Law which can expressly repeal it or restrict its thrust with regard to some particular offence by prescribing that when an offender is convicted thereof he is to be sentenced by imposing the penalty of imprisonment. But such an intention would have to be clearly expressed in the new Law. Thus we return to the meaning of section 10 which appears to me to be so clear that we may not say to the legislature that, although the meaning is clear, we will ignore the clear intention simply because it did not expressly state that section 3 (2) of the Probation Ordinance is not to apply. To that the legislature would say that the presumption is that it was aware of section 3 (2) of the Ordinance and the failure to mention the necessary words - rightly or not, and as I have said above I think rightly - is not a ground justifying disregard of the clear meaning of section 10.

 

            The many reasons for rejecting the suggested interpretation of section 10 are not evidence that it is not clear or is ambiguous. The many reasons are the consequence of the many arguments advanced which in themselves do not prove that the intention of the legislature is not plain.

 

            In my judgment the appeal should be granted and imprisonment imposed upon the respondent.

           

BERINSON J.                        In the previous hearing of this matter we heard exhaustive arguments from the Deputy State Attorney, Mr. Bach, and the late Mr. Toussia-Cohen on the main issue, the interpretation of section 10 of the Penal Law Amendment (Prostitution Offences) Law, 1962, and its relation to section 3 (2) of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1944. The majority and minority judgments appear to me not to have passed over any point worthy of attention, In this Further Hearing the State Attorney appeared and repeated in fact these arguments but more expansively and with the coherence normally characteristic of him. I have no intention of depreciating the value of his submissions by saying briefly that I have found nothing to move me to change my previous view which I explained at length in the earlier hearing. I shall therefore confine myself to a number of brief observations.

 

            In this Further Hearing the question is whether section 10 of the Prostitution Offences Law can stand alongside section 3 (2) of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1944, so that the provisions of the latter are applicable notwithstanding section 10, or whether section 10 ousts the application of section 3 (2). The question turns on the meaning to be given to "offence punishable with imprisonment" in section 3 (2). The view has been voiced that "punishable" refers only to offences for which the court may impose imprisonment and not to offences for which imprisonment is mandatory. I cannot agree to this interpretation. In my opinion, the phrase involved describes a group of offences in respect of which a probation order may be made instead of imposing a penalty (imprisonment or fine) and it is immaterial how the court comes to impose the penalty on the offender, whether permissively or mandatorily. An "offence punishable with imprisonment" does not cease to be such when the imprisonment is mandatory.

           

            The President says that had it not been the intention of the legislature to direct the court to impose a penalty, and precisely the penalty of imprisonment, for prostitution offences under sections 1- 3 of the Law to deny the possibility of making a probation order in place of imposing a penalty, it would not have adopted the imperative mood in section 10, "shall be imposed", and generally there would have been no need for this special section since it had already prescribed for the specific offences the maximum penalty of imprisonment by the terms "shall be liable to imprisonment". I have another explanation. Section 10 is not superfluous in the least because it is intended to limit the kinds of penalties which a court is empowered to impose for prostitution offences. When it imposes a penalty, it must impose the penalty of imprisonment (whether or not in conjunction with another penalty) but no other penalty can serve as a substitute to imprisonment. That, in my opinion, is the meaning of the mandatory imprisonment in section 10. It does not, however, negative the alternative of putting the offender on probation which is not a penalty and may replace it.

 

            The State Attorney persists in arguing that if section 10 of the Prostitution Offences Law does not entirely exclude the possibility of making a probation order, then the same rule should apply also to murder with regard to which the legislature employs exactly the same terms in directing in section 1 of the Penal Law Revision (Abolition of the Death Penalty for Murder) Law, 1954, that where a person has been convicted of murder the court shall impose life imprisonment and that alone. The terms of this Law indeed make it difficult psychologically to accept the view that I have propounded, although an important difference exists between the two Laws. In the first, the penalty is mandatory imprisonment (with or without some other penalty) but the court is completely free to fix the term of imprisonment /is no other penalty. If, however, it is said that this important difference is not determinative for the question before us, then, there being no option, I would not hold back from saying that both should be treated alike and in both a probation order may be made instead of imposing imprisonment. Until the adoption of the Law abolishing the death penalty for murder no difficulty occurred. When the Probation of Offenders Ordinance was enacted in 1944, it was clear that it did not apply to murder. At that time and until its abolition in 1954, death was the only penalty for murder and the Ordinance did not apply because it only covered offences for which the penalty was imprisonment or fine. When the Knesset abolished the death penalty and replaced it with life imprisonment but did not say anything about probation, murder also became "an offence and punishable with imprisonment" within the meaning of section 3 (2) of the Ordinance. It is difficult to imagine a case in which the court would in fact exercise this power but theoretically it is available as it then was in the case of manslaughter the penalty for which was life imprisonment, and today as well when it is a term of 20 years' imprisonment.

 

            In my earlier judgment I explained the view why it cannot be contemplated that by adopting section 10 of the Prostitution Offences Law the legislature intended to avoid indirectly the possibility of placing a person upon probation instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, and I do not need to go over that again. Had the Knesset so desired it would have needed to say so expressly, as it did regarding the non-imposition of a conditional sentence in place of actual imprisonment.

           

            My view remains as it was and in my judgment the Further Hearing should be dismissed and the majority opinion of the previous hearing upheld.

           

HALEVI J.                  The question before us is the relationship between section 10 of the Penal Law Amendment (Prostitution Offences) Law, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Prostitution Offences Law") and section 3 (2) of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1944 (hereinafter called "the Probation Ordinance"). Are these two enactments compatible? And if not, which takes precedence?

 

            Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9 of the Prostitution Offences Law define various offences and prescribe for each the maximum penalty which an offender may receive by the formula "shall be liable". Regarding offences under sections 1-3 the legislature goes on to prescribe by section 10, that "where a person is convicted... a penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed..., either as the sole penalty or in conjunction with another penalty, but conditional imprisonment shall not be imposed". The meaning of this provision - and in this regard I join in the view of the President and Cohn J. without hesitation - is that mandatory imprisonment is laid down for the offences mentioned.

           

            On the other hand section 3 (2) of the Probation Ordinance provides that "where any person is convicted... upon information of an offence punishable with imprisonment or fine, and the court is of the opinion that, having regard to the circumstances, including the character, the antecedents, age, home surroundings, health or mental condition of the offender, the nature of the offence and any extenuating circumstances in which the offence was committed, it is expedient to release the offender on probation, the court may, in lieu of sentencing him, make a probation order".

 

            In view of these two sections, the question arises of the relationship between section 10, imposing mandatory imprisonment, and section 3, empowering the court to release an offender on probation instead of sentencing him to prison. Can the two sections exist side by side or are they conflicting? And if they are conflicting, which takes precedence? Opinions are divided and each has some foundation.

           

            One view is that neither affects the other since they concern different things - "a penalty" and "probation" which is not a penalty. Section 10 prescribes "mandatory imprisonment" as the penalty for any person convicted of an offence under section 1 or 2 or 3 of the Prostitution Offences Law, thus restricting the judge's discretion in choosing between different penalties - imprisonment, conditional imprisonment or fine - when sentencing the offender. Section 3 (2) on the other hand does not affect the content of the sentence and the kind of penalty which is to be imposed. It allows the judge in given circumstances to refrain from sentencing and instead make a probation order. According to this outlook there is no conflict between the two sections, but if any substantial inconsistency does exist, section 3 (2) of the Probation Ordinance prevails.

           

            Another view urges that section 10 of the Prostitution Offences Law contradicts and sets aside section 3 (2) of the Probation Ordinance. The provision in section 10 that "where a person has been convicted...a penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed" obliges the judge convicting the defendant to impose a penalty and that penalty has to be imprisonment. The judge will not be doing his duty if he exercises his normal power under section 3 (2) of the Probation Ordinance "to release the offender on probation... in lieu of sentencing him". The duty to impose imprisonment upon any one convicted of one of the offences referred to in section 10 deprives the judge of the power to put the offender on probation. Inevitably, according to this view, in the conflict between section 10 of the Prostitution Offences Law and section 3 (2) of the Probation Ordinance section 10 prevails.

           

            The matter is therefore open to debate but upon consideration the first view seems to me to be preferable to the second. My reasons are as follows.

           

            The Prostitution Offences Law is to be read and understood against the background of the Penal Law Revision (Modes of Punishment) Law, 1954. Section 1 of that Law provides that

           

"A court which has convicted a person of an offence may impose on him any penalty not exceeding the penalty prescribed by law for that offence".

 

Section 10 provides that

 

"Where the law prescribes imprisonment and does not prescribe a fine, the court may -

...        

(3)...impose imprisonment as prescribed or a fine not exceeding IL 5,000 or both such penalties; provided that where the law makes imprisonment obligatory or prescribes a minimum period of imprisonment, imprisonment shall not be replaced by a fine".

 

Section 18 before amendment in 1963 provided that

 

"(a) Where the court may impose a penalty of imprisonment, it may, in lieu thereof, impose conditional imprisonment".

 

And after amendment, that

 

"(a) Where the court imposes a penalty of imprisonment, it may, in the sentence, direct that whole or part of such penalty shall be conditional"

 

Section 25 as amended provides that

 

"The court which has convicted a person may, in addition to the penalty imposed, order the person sentenced to bind himself by recognizance to abstain from an offence for such period not exceeding three years as the court may prescribe".

 

            These sections taken together prescribe the great rule as to modes of punishment in Israel, that every penalty prescribed by any criminal law is a maximum penalty and that the legislature entrusts to the judge the task to prescribe in his discretion the penalty appropriate to each case both as regards the kind of penalty and as regards its extent, as appears to him to be right and proper. Section 10 of the Prostitution Offences Law makes an exception from this general rule. Apart from this section, a court convicting someone under section 1, 2 or 3 of the Law might, in view of the sections of the Modes of Punishment Law set out above, impose a penalty of imprisonment as prescribed in the section dealing with the offence in question or conditional imprisonment or a fine of up to IL 5,000 or a combination of such penalties with or without recognizance. But then section 10 comes along and provides that

           

"Where a person has been convicted of an offence under section 1, 2 or 3 of this Law, a penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed upon him, either as the sole penalty or in conjunction with another penalty, but conditional imprisonment shall not be imposed upon him".

 

The effect and significance of section 10 is to restrict the judge's freedom of choice as between the kinds of penalties mentioned in the Modes of Punishment Law to imprisonment with or without "another penalty" such as fine or recognizance (and according to Rabo v. Attorney-General (8), also conditional imprisonment). The sole penalty prescribed by section 10 is (unconditional) imprisonment for the offences in question and in this sense the marginal heading that sums up the section, "Mandatory imprisonment", is correct.

 

            As for the wording of section 10 - "Where a person is convicted of an offence... imprisonment shall be imposed upon him" - it is proper to notice the similar wording of section 1 of the Modes of Punishment Law - "A court which has convicted a person of an offence may impose on him any penalty" (Cf. also section 10 of this Law - "Where the law prescribes imprisonment ... the court may impose"). This parallelism to my mind strengthens the view I have taken that section 10 of the Prostitution Offences Law is to be read in the light of sections 1, 10 and 18 of the Modes of Punishment Law. In order to depart from the maximum-penalty rule laid down in the Modes of Punishment Law (sections 1 and 10) section 10 of the Prostitution Offences Law says that "Where a person has been convicted of an offence... a penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed upon him, either as the sole penalty or in conjunction with another penalty". In order to exclude section 18 of the Modes of Punishment Law in its original version, section 10 employs the same terms but adds "but conditional imprisonment shall not be imposed upon him". The phrase "Mandatory imprisonment" in the margin to section 10 repeats also the language of the end part of section 10 of the Modes of Punishment Law, that "where the law makes imprisonment obligatory... imprisonment shall not be replaced by a fine".

 

            It seems to me that the main purpose of section 10 is merely to exclude the offences mentioned therein from the provisions of the Modes of Punishment Law which give the court freedom of choosing between kinds of punishment in its discretion. Section 10 varies the normal "modes of punishment" by prescribing "mandatory imprisonment" for given offences. But it does not deal with or affect the placing of offenders on probation. As my honourable friend, Berinson J., said, probation is an "alternative" to penalty, a point stressed in section 3 (2) by the words "in lieu of sentencing him". According to that section, the judge must before making the probation order explain its meaning to the offender and inter alia that "if he fails... to comply therewith or commits another offence, he will be liable to be sentenced for the original offence". When sentence is pronounced for the original offence (in the event of a breach of the probation order etc.) section 10 of the Prostitution Offences Law will apply and imprisonment will be imposed. Section 10 does not set aside the provisions of the Probation Ordinance nor compel the judge to give a sentence since section 3 (2) of the Ordinance empowers him to abstain from doing so and to put the offender on probation. Section 10 lays down provisions binding as regards the content of the sentence but not as regards to the circumstances in which it is or is not to be given according to an enactment not referred to therein.

           

            Section 3 (2) of the Probation Ordinance applies to every offence "punishable with imprisonment or fine". It cannot be argued that these words are confined to an offence for which just"imprisonment or fine" are prescribed, excluding mandatory imprisonment. The meaning is undoubtedly "an offence punishable by imprisonment or an offence punishable by fine". The word "punishable" also does not restrict one to a penalty which is not "mandatory". Section 3 (2) of the Probation Ordinance was copied with some small variations from section 1 (2) of the (English) Probation of Offenders Act. 1907. which provides inter alia that

 

"Where any person has been convicted on indictment of any offence punishable with imprisonment. ... the court may, in lieu of imposing a sentence of imprisonment, make an order etc.".

 

Until the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948 (which replaced the 1907 Act) there was no general statute in England which enabled all the courts to impose a fine instead of imprisonment for commission of a felony. Section 13 of the Criminal Justice Act provides that

 

"Any court before which an offender is convicted on indictment of felony (not being a felony the sentence for which is fixed by law) shall have power to fine the offender in lieu of or in addition to dealing with him in any other manner in which the court has power to deal with him".

 

In R. v. Parry (10) Lord Goddard C.J. (at 1180) explained the history of section 13 as follows.

 

"The history of that section and the reason for importing it into the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, is well known. There were certain felonies, principally those under the Larceny Act, 1916, in which a court of summary jurisdiction had power to fine. That was because it was considered desirable in the case of petty thefts that a court should be able to fine the offender and not send him to prison, but in cases which came before a court of assize or quarter sessions on indictment there was no power to fine until this Act of 1948, except in the case of manslaughter. The reason for that was that the offence of manslaughter varies enormously in seriousness according to the circumstances in which it is committed. Over and over again judges have had to deal at assizes with an offence which technically was a felony, where they would have been glad to have imposed a fine had there been power to do so. The court was often left in the position that it had either to send a person of hitherto good character to prison for a comparatively small offence or else bind him over, which was to inflict no punishment. That is the reason why Parliament by the Act of 1948 gave to courts trying cases on indictment the same powers as courts of summary jurisdiction formerly had in certain cases and now have in all cases of felony, i.e., the power of imposing a fine instead of sending to prison."

 

            Thus until 1948 the penalty for most felons in England was "mandatory imprisonment" in the sense of the last part of section 10 of the Modes of Punishment Law and section 10 of the Prostitution Offences Law. Nevertheless the English courts were never denied the power to release a person convicted of any offence apart from murder by binding him over, with or without sureties, to come up for judgment, a course which served as an alternative to sentencing him and imposing mandatory imprisonment. (See the judgment of Lord Goddard in the case cited above and Archbold, Pleading, Evidence and Practice in Criminal Cases, 35th ed., paragraph 722.) Another alternative to sentencing was introduced by section 1(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907 (mentioned above) which empowered the courts to release on probation any person convicted of an offence "punishable with imprisonment", other than those for which the penalty was death. In view of the statutory situation in England until 1948, "punishable with imprisonment" in section 1 (2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907 (which served as the pattern for drafting of section 3 (2) of the 1944 Probation of Offenders Ordinance) included also, and mainly, offences for which imprisonment was mandatory. The intention of the English legislature was to give the courts a new alternative (far more important than the old one of binding over) to imposing mandatory imprisonment on an offender who seemed to merit and be suitable for probation. Throughout the subsistence of the original English Probation Act (from 1907 until 1948) there existed therefore side by side "mandatory imprisonment" and "probation" applicable to the same offences, and not only were they not in conflict but complementary, serving as the legislature had intended, as alternative methods for the courts. There is no reason for attributing a different relationship between mandatory imprisonment under section 10 of the Prostitution Offences Law and probation under section 3 (2) of the Probation Ordinance.

           

            The English Probation Act of 1907 was, as I have said, replaced by the Criminal Justice Act of 1948, section 3 (1) of which provides inter alia that

           

"Where a court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence (not being an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law) is of opinion etc. ... the court may, instead of sentencing him, make a probation order"

 

            Section 80 of the same Act defines

 

" 'Offence the sentence for which is fixed by law' means an offence for which the court is required to sentence the offender to death or imprisonment for life or to detention during His Majesty's pleasure".

 

An offence "for which the court is required to sentence the offender to... imprisonment for life" is non-capital murder under section 9 of the Homicide Act, 1957. Section 3 (1) of the 1948 Act does not directly affect the matter before us and I have only mentioned it in order to show that even under existing English law, a probation order can be made in every criminal offence apart from murder and those for which life imprisonment is prescribed.

 

            I see no need to express an opinion regarding the interpretation of the Penal Law Revision (Abolition of the Death Penalty for Murder) Law, 1954. Even if the legislature did not realise the need for amending the Probation Ordinance as a result of the abolition of the death penalty for murder there is yet a vast difference between life imprisonment as a mandatory penalty (see section 2 of the Modes of Punishment Law) and mandatory imprisonment for one day prescribed by section 10 of the Prostitution Offences Law. Whatever the position regarding mandatory life imprisonment, there is nothing in section 3 (2) of the Probation Ordinance to suggest that mere "mandatory imprisonment" with which we are concerned excludes an offence from the operation of the Ordinance.

           

The existing legislation regarding the modes of punishment is not of one piece and even if all the difficulties concerning the different enactments in this area have as yet not been resolved, no far-going conclusions in law are to be drawn from that. Accordingly it appears to me that one should not infer from the lack of reasonableness in applying the Probation Ordinance to murder for which the penalty is mandatory life imprisonment, that this Ordinance does not apply to every other offence the penalty for which is mandatory imprisonment.

 

            Since section 3 (2) of the Probation Ordinance does not distinguish between imprisonment which is mandatory and that which is not, the legislature's intention to deny the application of the Probation Ordinance, if it had such intention, should have found expression in section 10 of the Prostitution Offences Law. In order to ascertain the legislature's intention I do not need to rely on the speeches in the Knesset during the debate on the section. According to the usual rules of interpretation, express statutory provision is necessary to negative lawful judicial powers, particularly in criminal matters. The judicial power under section 3 (2) of the Probation Ordinance to release a person convicted on information for an offence punishable by imprisonment and to put him on probation is not negated by any express provision of section 10 of the Prostitution Offences Law. In the judgment of my honourable friend, Cohn J., in Weigel (1) the legislature's intention to deny the existing powers under the Probation Ordinance is implied from the word "Where a person has been convicted... a penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed upon him", which he construes as "Where a person has been convicted... a penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed upon (but he shall not be released on probation) and the penalty shall be imprisonment (and no other penalty)". With all respect, this seems to me mere inference since there is no "automatic penalty". Section 10 does not say that "notwithstanding the provisions of any other enactment" the penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed. In my view, so fundamental a matter as the setting aside in part of the method of probation cannot rest on inference without express statutory provision, since it restricts the powers of the court, the rights of the individual in criminal matters and the functioning of a probation service intended to rehabilitate the offender and turn him into a useful citizen.

 

            Nevertheless I do find myself bound to stress what my honourable friend, Berinson J., said at the end of his judgment in Weigel, that in offences of the kind in question it will be "most rare" for the court actually to exercise its power to place an offender on probation. The Prostitution Offences Law of 1962 was intended to treat procurers of various kinds with severity and it was found fit in the public interest to increase the penalty to five or seven years' imprisonment, to make imprisonment mandatory and to direct that it should not be commuted to conditional imprisonment. Probation officers and judges would make the Law a sham, were they to go on using probation for offenders who come within section 10. I have mentioned probation officers since under section 3 (2) of the Probation Ordinance, as amended, a court is not to make a probation order until it has received the opinion of a probation officer. Moreover, under section 19(a) of the Modes of Punishment Law, the court may, before imposing a penalty, require a written report by a probation officer, and under section 19(b), as amended, the court may not impose a penalty of unconditional imprisonment on an offender who had not reached the age of 21 at the time when the offence was committed until such a report has been received. Section 19(c) provides that "in a report as aforesaid, the probation officer may recommend to the court the type of penalty which, in his opinion, offers prospects of reforming the prisoner". Thus the probation officer plays an important role when the court effectuates probation and in this sense he is "a partner of the judge", although it is the latter who has the last word. It is in general difficult for an appellate court to interfere with the discretion of a judge who decides to place an offender on probation, and the question whether the learned District Court judge in the present case was right does not arise. In any event, apart from exceptional instances, the right place for procurers and those who promote prostitution is prison.

 

            For these reasons I propose to confirm the decision of the majority in Weigel (1) and to dismiss the appeal.

           

MANNY J.                 I concur in the judgments of my learned brothers, Berinson J. and Halevi J., and join in the conclusion they have reached.

 

COHN J.                     I disagree with the premise of my honourable friend, Halevi J., that section 10 of the Penal Law Amendment (Prostitution Offences) Law is to be read and construed against "the background" of the Penal Law Revision (Modes of Punishment) Law. For me, the opposite is the case: the entire object of section 10 is only to take out the penalties mentioned therein from the rules prescribed in this Law regarding punishment for all other kinds of offences. It is very true that section 10 is not intended to affect the rule of the maximation of penalties and to this extent the general law applies to it, but it is intended expressly and unambiguously to affect the alternation of penalties, and just as it decrees "mandatory imprisonment" excluding fine and conditional imprisonment, it also decrees imprisonment excluding modes of treatment which do not come within the meaning of penalty.

 

            Likewise I do not draw the analogy which my honourable friend, Halevi J., has drawn between "may impose" in the Modes of Punishment Law and "shall be imposed" in the Prostitution Offences Law. I agree wholly with the learned President that the imperative of "shall be imposed" is not to be ignored, in contrast to the permissiveness and discretion of "may impose". Here as well, the opposite is the case: whilst the Modes of Punishment Law gives the judge a discretion as to the severity of the penalty he may impose, the Prostitution Offences Law denies him that discretion since, whatever he may wish to do, imprisonment shall be imposed.

 

            As I suggested in my previous judgment in this matter, it seems to me that the question of interpreting section 3(2) of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1944, does not arise at all. The appellant's fate must, in my opinion, be decided according only to the interpretation of section 10 of the Prostitution Offences Law; and on the correct interpretation of this section there is no place for applying this provision of the Probation Ordinance whatever its interpretation, because section 10 excludes the application of any statutory provision which empowers the court to deal with a person convicted of an offence under the Law in any manner other than by imposing imprisonment alone.

           

            Accordingly I come to the same conclusion as the learned President and adhere to his view.

           

Further Hearing dismissed by a majority and the majority decision in the previous hearing upheld.

 

Judgment given on October 31, 1963.

 

* Under section 8 of the Courts Law, 1957, a Further Hearing by five or more judges of the Supreme Court will be granted "in view of the importance, difficulty, or novelty" of a ruling of the Supreme Court sitting with three judges.