District court rejected police appeal, detainee released

Sunday, November 1, 2015, 14:46 On Wednesday, October 28, a Jewish youth under a house arrest order signed by the GOC of the Central Command was detained after he left a friend’s wedding. The house arrest order is in effect only at night. The police rushed to issue an indictment against him and demand that he be held in remand until the end of proceedings against him, however Jerusalem Magistrate Court Judge Shmuel Herbst accepted the opinion of Honenu Attorney David HaLevi and ordered the youth released on condition of 3,000 NIS bail.
Despite similar decisions handed down in the case of another youth, the police did not relent and filed an appeal with the Jerusalem District Court. Judge Amnon Cohen accepted the opinion of Attorney Itamar Ben-Gvir, who represented the youth on behalf of Honenu at the deliberation on the appeal, and rejected the demands by the police and also refused to give an order to delay carrying out the decision.
During the deliberation the representative of the prosecution referred in general to the approximately 35 Jewish youths who have recently received administrative orders and claimed that, “They are systematically violating administrative orders.” To the judge’s question as to how many times the defendant in his presence had violated the order, he was forced to admit that this was the one and only time. The representative of the prosecution also claimed that the defendant had probably spoken at the wedding with hilltop youth with whom he is forbidden to speak. However in response to the judge’s question, the representative of the prosecution was forced to admit that he had no evidence implicating the defendant.
Attorney Itamar Ben-Gvir stated that, “This is an unprecedented policy of the police prosecution and the Attorney General’s office, which even in cases of violations of release conditions by people who committed serious violations, do not demand remand until the end of proceedings over one violation. I presented a ruling to the judge, from a murder case in which the defendant was released to house arrest, and violated it several times. He was given only a warning, which satisfied the Attorney General’s office. The conduct of the prosecution as ordered by the Attorney General’s office indicates that political considerations are involved not only with issuing the administrative orders, but also with their enforcement. The court did well to reject the appeal by the prosecution.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.