The resident of Jerusalem, who is in prison for violent offenses against his ex-wife and his children, could not believe the good fortune that befell him. The indictment filed against him due to threats against his ex-wife from prison, was canceled due to a police failure: the indictment stated his criminal record, which is prohibited.
"In my opinion, this is a real flaw and even amounts to invalidity in the wording of the indictment," wrote in his decision the judge of the magistrate's court in the city, Muhammad Haj Yahya.
The accused was prosecuted as mentioned for threats against his ex-partner.
The two have several children together, including an 11-year-old girl. According to the indictment, while he was serving a prison sentence for violence against her and the children, he called his daughter.
Since the daughter refused to talk to him, the mother picked up the phone and answered the call.
After a trial and discussions between them, the defendant told her: "You will pay dearly for everything, I will make sure that you regret what you did, that you will cry the blood of crocodiles after I make you suffer. I will make sure that you suffer for the rest of your life, that they take away your children. Everything you did The same thing will come back to you. I know you wanted me to go to prison for more years, and it didn't work for you. I promise you that soon I will be released and you will see what I will do to you, no one will help you. For my part, let the conversation between us be recorded, pass it on to whom that you want."
Before responding to the charge, the defendant raised a preliminary claim that the charge should be dismissed, since it stated the fact of his criminal record and imprisonment - something that he claims was only intended to blacken his face in this proceeding.
The police prosecution objected to the cancellation of the indictment and pointed out that although the indictment mentions the fact of the accused's imprisonment for violent offenses against the complainant and their children, but in her opinion "this fact is an aggravating circumstance relevant to the facts described in the indictment and should teach about the strength of the threat and its circumstances, and does not rise to the point of blackening The face of the accused".
"authority to correct"
As mentioned, Judge Haj Yahya accepted the defendant's words and wrote in his decision that he came to the conclusion that the indictment was fundamentally flawed and even invalid.
"This is a detail that is not part of the factual infrastructure of the circumstances of the commission of the specific offense that is the object of the charge, and is not necessary at all for the investigation and proof of the charge," he wrote.
"It is not clear how a previous conviction under the circumstances of the case will prove the guilt of the subject of the current charge. The solutions lie with the accuser. In my opinion, this is a real flaw and even reaches the point of invalidity in the wording of the indictment.
"The court has the authority to amend the indictment or cancel it. In my opinion, under the circumstances, the amendment of the indictment is meaningless, since any judicial factor that will be required for this procedure after the submission of an amended indictment within its framework, may be exposed to the original indictment and thus miss the purpose of the rule that we stood for" .
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