The prisons in Israel are among the places most documented by security cameras, as we know, so how much was the surprise of the judge hearing the assault of a prison guard by a detainee, to hear the prosecution's claim that there is no documentation of the incident.
So the detainee's defense attorney suggested: "Let's go out and see if they are," the judge agreed - and finally he had no choice but to acquit the accused, when he saw with his own eyes that the prison was indeed surrounded entirely by active and highly effective cameras.
Gideon (pseudonym) was recently accused in the Magistrate's Court in Tiberias that while he was a prisoner in the Sheta prison, he insulted one of the guards rudely, said: "I don't speak to you behind the door," and kicked the guard's leg hard.
However, in court, Gideon claimed that he was actually the one who was attacked by the guards, and his defense attorney Yosef Hazem from the Public Defender's Office even accepted that the prosecution did not attach documentary videos from the scene.
The jailer claimed that the prisoner attacked him, the prosecution had difficulty providing evidentiary support (for illustration), photo: Yehoshua Yosef
On the other hand, the prosecution claimed that the incident was not recorded because the security camera placed at the location does not cover the entire relevant area, and that the refrigerator standing there blocks the field of vision anyway.
In response, and since there is no such thing as a mirror, the defense attorney asked the judge, a wise opponent, to go to the field, and so it was.
However, when the judge and the representatives of both sides arrived at the prison, they found out that the cameras there are actually located in Boun and Gaon, recording every movement in the area.
"unacceptable"
And so the judge wrote in his decision, after everyone had returned from the tour of the prison: "In the absence of an allegation that arises from time to time in cases of this type and in crimes committed within the walls of the prison, according to which a malfunction occurred with the security cameras at the scene of the incident - the claim that the incident was not recorded or captured by the cameras at all is not conceivable under the circumstances The matter, paying attention to the court's direct and unequivocal impression of the findings that came up during the visit to the place."
The non-submission of the documentary videos, even though the cameras were checked on the day of the incident, led the judge to the conclusion that Gideon's version of the incident cannot be ruled out.
"There was no obstacle to obtaining the documentation from the security cameras in real time and attaching it to the evidence," Navon pointed out, "and no explanation was given for this omission which creates reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's guilt in the crime, and even creates factual uncertainty regarding the manner in which the event itself occurred."
Visual damage
Therefore, the judge stated, "This failure of the investigating unit, and as a result of this also of the accuser - which was not done on purpose, but requires an internal audit - causes evidentiary damage to the accused, who was deprived of any possibility to substantiate his claim and refute the accuser's version using the best evidence under the circumstances the matter".
In response to the court's decision, Attorney Hazem told Israel Hayom: "I insisted on holding a tour of the place where the incident took place, with the participation of the prosecutor and the judge, and the existence of cameras that were supposed to record it was proven. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the court accepted our claims and acquitted You are my client."
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