Honenu Attorney Ophir Steiner; Photo credit Honenu
Sunday, April 7, 2024, 8:55 Approximately three years ago, S., a Muslim border police officer from northern Israel entered the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan as part of an operation against criminals, together with other officers. An Arab resident of the neighborhood who had no connection to the operational activity climbed onto the roof of a nearby building and threw roof tiles and other objects at the officers. One of the tiles hit S. in the face and injured him. The Arab was arrested and later convicted in a plea bargain of aggravated assault, obstructing a police officer in the course of his of duty, and making threats, but not an act of terror. He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.
Following the conviction, in May 2022, S. sued his assailant in civil proceedings and filed a request for the reduction in court fees granted by law to a terror victim. The State Attorney’s Office replied that his injury was not caused during a terror incident and did not accept the explanations of his attorney. However, in July 2022, the Jerusalem District Court recognized the border police officer as a terror victim. One month later, the State Attorney’s Office appealed the decision.
Honenu Attorney Ophir Steiner, who represented S. throughout the prolonged legal battle, insisted that the incident was an act of terror, and that it was part of a dangerous trend of throwing objects off of roofs at security forces. In the past two years soldiers, among them First Sergeant Ronen Lubarsky and First Sergeant Amit Ben Yigal, Hy”d have been killed in similar acts.
Recently, the Jerusalem District Court accepted S.’s claim, according to which the conviction in a criminal trial and the recognition of the officer as a victim of terror for the purpose of civil proceedings are separate issues. The court ruled that the purpose of the civil proceedings is to facilitate the victim’s demand for compensation, whereas the purpose of the criminal proceedings was to punish the terrorist. Because the burden of proof is higher for penalization in criminal trials, the court ruled that the victim may be recognized as a terror victim, even though the assailant was not convicted of an act of terror in the criminal trial. The Jerusalem District Court rejected the State Attorney’s Office’s appeal, recognized S. as a victim of terror, and granted him the reduction in court fees.
Honenu Attorney Ophir Steiner welcomed the court’s decision and said, “We welcome the Jerusalem District Court’s decision that recognized what should have been self evident: A combat soldier sent by the State of Israel to an operational activity and who was then wounded by the acts of someone who attacked him only because of the uniform he wore, is a victim of terror. This is an important court ruling that will assist many others who demand compensation from those who injured them in acts of terror or hostility and were subsequently convicted in criminal proceedings, in a plea bargain, of lesser charges, instead of terror charges”