The Supreme Court accepted the prosecution's appeal and left the defendant Hassan Abu Ghraiba behind bars, accused of committing sexual offenses against a complainant at a medical institution in Be'er Sheva.
According to the indictment, the defendant took advantage of the complainant who knew him about his work at a medical institution in Be'er Sheva and asked to consult with him.
The defendant led the complainant to the staff rooms of the medical institution where he sexually assaulted her, committed an act of sodomy on her and possessed her without her free consent.
Along with the indictment attributing to the defendant committing offenses of rape, sodomy and indecent act, the Southern District Attorney’s Office filed a motion with the District Court to detain the defendant until the end of the legal proceedings against him.
The Beersheba District Court, headed by Judge Nasr Abu Taha, ordered the defendant's detention with electronic restraint, without first ordering the preparation of an arrest report, due to the expected long delay in preparing the survey.
At the conclusion of its decision, the district court ordered the preparation of a survey, which would be filed two months later.
The State Attorney's Office filed an appeal against the decision and the Supreme Court, as stated, accepted the State Attorney's Office's position and ordered that the defendant remain in custody behind bars until another decision, which will be made after receiving an arrest warrant.
In its decision, the Supreme Court (Honorable Justice Y. Wilner) ruled that there were no "exceptional reasons" for detention in electronic restraint without a review, starting in our case because the offenses were committed with severe violence and cruelty, but on the contrary - there are compelling reasons to receive a detention review. In order to assess the danger of the respondent, especially in view of the gap between his seemingly normative lifestyle, and the serious acts attributed to him.
It was further determined that the burden placed on the probation service and the exceptional waiting times for detention surveys in the Southern District, can not be used as "special reasons" and that .. even in view of the systemic constraints described the public interests protected by the various detention grounds must be taken into account.