An appeal was filed for the non-criminal conviction of a beating man, this after the judge overturned his conviction, despite admitting to assaulting his girlfriend.
The appeal states, among other things, that the complainant stated to the probation service that the injuries caused to her as a result of the defendant's actions are very serious and that she is still dealing with difficulties created as a result of the incident.
A few weeks ago, the criminal conviction of a Mecca man was overturned after a Rehovot court judge ruled that he "intended to hurt, but did not see the danger in the act."
The appeal filed with the Central District Court referred to the court's determination - "This court's determination must be rejected: the defendant is the one who chose to attack the complainant and in the manner in which he did so. He should have taken into account the possible result of his actions."
As you may recall, it was reported in "Israel Today" that the justice of the Magistrate's Court in Rehovot, Zohar Divon Segal, relieved a man who admitted to assaulting his partner and, among other things, called it: "a spontaneous outburst of violence."
According to the indictment filed by the Rehovot Prosecution Unit, while the defendant was the complainant's spouse the two drank alcohol, and an argument erupted between them.
During which he cursed at her, and later began to shout at her, slapped her in the face and strangled her.
She pushed him away and left the bedroom.
The defendant followed her, and when she asked for an explanation of his actions - he kicked her in the chest and she was pushed back.
In response, the complainant shouted that he should leave the house, and threw away his phone.
When he left, we locked the door.
The defendant returned later, opened the gate and started shouting at the complainant.
It opened the door and said to the defendant: "You beat me, you did not enter. It ended between us."
200 Service Works: Violence Against Women, Illustration, Photo: Gettyimages
He continued to knock hard on the door, and even kicked it until it opened, entered the house, cursed at the complainant and kicked hard in the lower part of her right leg.
She fell and her head hit the sideboard in the living room, lost consciousness and her nose began to bleed.
The judge finally decided to overturn the defendant's criminal conviction and imposed on him only 200 hours of work for the benefit of the public as well as NIS 7,000 in compensation to the complainant.
Now, an appeal has been lodged against the judge's decision and the appeal states among other things that the complainant stated before the probation service that the injuries caused to her as a result of the defendant's actions are very severe and that she is still dealing with difficulties arising from the incident.
The complainant further stated that she is afraid of the respondent and even afraid that after the legal proceedings, the defendant will try to contact her in order to get closer to her.
The complainant added that she refrains from reaching the places that the respondent reaches.
"The complainant's position is understandable in view of the great humiliation caused to her by the respondent, as the incident is prolonged, the beginning of which is not in a private place and continued - inside the complainant's home, where she is supposed to feel protected. "It should be at least part of the fabric of considerations that the court must consider when making this decision," the appeal said.
"One of the purposes of criminal proceedings is to remedy the damage caused to victims of crime. Completion of criminal proceedings that deal with serious violence against a victim of non-conviction, without regard at all to her position, severely harms the way the public perceives the court's role as part of law enforcement. In the public interest. "
The appeal also referred to the fact that the judge stated that although the respondent intended to hurt the complainant, he did not mean the consequences of the actual incident - loss of consciousness - and that this has the effect of mitigating the seriousness of his actions.
"This determination of the court must be rejected: the defendant is the one who chose to attack the complainant and in the manner in which he did so. The public and the need to convict the respondent. "
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us
