The Central District Court today (Thursday) accepted the appeal filed by the Cyber Department of the State Attorney's Office, against the decision to release Yosef Albaz, the imam of the Great Mosque of Lod, to electronic handcuffs, and rejected the appeal filed by Albaz regarding the existence of alleged evidence of crimes of incitement to violence attributed to to him.
As a reminder, the cyber department filed an indictment against Yosef Albaz, charging him with two offenses of incitement to violence, this against the background of his publications during the incidents of violence and violations of order in the Temple Mount area that occurred during the last month of Ramadan on the Temple Mount.
At the same time as the indictment, a request was also submitted for detention until the end of the proceedings (this is in addition to the indictment filed against him for crimes of incitement to violence and threats due to his publications near the "Wall Guard" operation and his conviction for crimes of injury and threats).
As part of the proceedings in his case, the accused argued against the existence of prima facie evidence for the commission of the crimes attributed to him.
However, the Magistrate's Court of Israel determined that there is evidence of the intent to commit the crime and that the insight into the danger posed by him was also learned from his previous actions and therefore already at this stage, the accused can be arrested until the end of the proceedings. In the report that the defendant poses a risk of repeating illegal behavior in the area of incitement to violence and therefore does not recommend the defendant's release, the court ordered the transfer of the defendant to electronic handcuffing.
As part of its decision on the appeal requests, the district court stated that "in determining that there is an infrastructure to prove the commission of the offense of incitement, one must take into account the importance of freedom of expression, which has been recognized in Israel as a "supreme right" and is a principle found at the foundation of every democratic regime. The firm status of this principle Strengthened with the enactment of a basic law: human dignity and freedom. Freedom of speech also includes the right to "express dangerous, irritating and deviant opinions, which the public abhors and hates."
However, it is clear that the right to freedom of expression, including the right to political freedom of expression, is not an absolute right, and is balanced by other interests."
Since there is no dispute that the accused did say the things attributed to him in the indictment, the appeal submitted by the accused mainly dealt with the question of whether his words amount to inciting words that have a real possibility of causing an act of violence.
The court rejected the defendant's appeal and stated that: "According to the content of the defendant's words and the circumstances of the publications, there is a possibility of an actual conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism or violence, and the defendant was apparently aware of the nature of the act and the existence of the circumstances. This conclusion is apparently based on the totality of the circumstances of the matter."
He further stated that: "Therefore, an examination of the totality of the circumstances, including the content of the words, the identity of the speaker, his status and influence, the scope of the publication, along with the circumstances in which the words were said, against the background of the riots and a hostile public atmosphere, all together show a real possibility that the words of the accused will lead to violence".
Regarding the appeal filed by attorneys Yoni Haddad and Or Arber from the cyber department regarding his arrest in electronic handcuffs, the court accepted the state's position and determined that the defendant will be detained until the end of the proceedings against him. The decision stated, among other things, that: "The offenses attributed to the defendant do not establish a statutory reason for arrest.
Also, we are talking about the offenses of incitement at the low level - words of praise, sympathy or encouragement for an act of violence - and not at the high level - calling for an act of violence, indeed, those accused of incitement are usually not arrested until the end of the proceedings."
It was further determined that this is "an exceptional case in which the defendant's high level of dangerousness is learned from a number of other sources: the defendant's status as a religious figure who has an influence on many, and the statement of the words during a particularly explosive period; the performance attributed to him at a time when an indictment for similar acts is pending against him; his conviction for a serious crime of violence And a sentence of 20 months in prison on him; and the evaluation of the probation service regarding his impulsive patterns and the possibility of committing similar crimes in cyberspace, alongside the assessment that the supervisors are not suitable."
Were we wrong?
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us