The Lod Center District Court on Sunday rejected the appeal of former Bar Association chairman Efi Naveh and the state's appeal in the "crossings affair." As a result, Naveh and his partner, Bar Katz, will remain sentenced to probation and a fine.
As for the question of Naveh's candidacy, this decision will not affect his attempt to return to the head of the Bar Association, since there is no disgrace in this offense. However, the election committee is expected to hold a hearing on the issue of disgrace, and Naveh can appeal any decision made by the committee.
As you may recall, Naveh and his partner decided to fly to Thailand for a joint vacation. Against the background of a divorce dispute that the appellant was waging at the time, they sought to act to conceal their stay. To this end, Naveh presented his passport at a mechanized post, received a gatepass, handed the gatepass to the appellant, who passed through the inspection machine and the appellant clung to another passenger, crawled and passed through the crossing gate with her at the same time.
When entering Israel, the two behaved in a similar manner, but the appellant clung to the appellant and not to another passenger.
The Magistrate's Court's ruling imposed on each of them two months' imprisonment, suspended for three years, not to commit any offense under the Entry into Israel Law or the offense of receiving something fraudulently and a fine of NIS 2,000.
Efi Naveh and Bar Katz in court, photo: Yossi Zeliger
As a result, two appeals were filed with the District Court. Naveh and his partner appealed their conviction on the grounds that there was no reason to convict them of receiving something fraudulently, in addition to their conviction for offenses under the Entry into Israel Law. In addition, the appellants claimed selective enforcement and extraneous considerations in their prosecution. With regard to the sentence, the appellants argue that in any case it was right to end their case without a conviction.
The Jerusalem Bar Association building. Naveh will return to his previous position?, Photo: uncredited
The second appeal came from the representation of the State, which also appealed the sentence, and according to it, the appellants' sentence should have been increased and a tangible punishment should have been imposed on them, not just a forward-looking punishment.
Conviction cannot be avoided
The District Court rejected both appeals, noting that with regard to the type of offense, it was determined that the acts were directed against government authorities and harmed the state's ability as sovereign to supervise those entering and leaving its gates. The type of offenses committed by the appellants and the circumstances of their commission together, in full cooperation, out of personal motivation and in order to obtain profit for them, make it impossible to avoid conviction without substantially prejudice to other penalty considerations. The appellants' actions were done with deception and deception towards the government authorities, and were spread over two separate incidents, with a considerable time difference, so that these acts should not be regarded as a specific error.
The border crossings at Ben Gurion Airport (the subjects have no connection to the information), Photo: Ilan Gatteño
With regard to the State's appeal as to the validity of the appellants' sentence, the Court referred to the rule according to which the appellate court does not resentence the appellant, but rather its main function is to examine the reasonableness of the sentence and whether the final sentence imposed on the defendant is appropriate to the act and the nature of the act. In the totality of the relevant considerations, the Magistrate's Court's rulings do not deviate to such an extent from what is appropriate and acceptable, in a manner that justifies the intervention of the appellate court.
In this regard, it appears that it is precisely the appellant's status and public role and the effect of the conviction on his status and on his continued professional path that justify the final result reached by the Magistrate's Court with regard to the final sentence imposed on him.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us
