Case Number
CrimA 111A/99
Date Decided
6-7-2000
Decision Type
Appellate
Document Type
Full Opinion
Abstract
Facts: The applicant was convicted in the District Court in Tel-Aviv-Jaffa of two offenses: the commission of rape under section 345(A)(1) of the Penal Law 5737-1977 and the commission of sodomy, an offense under section 347(A) of the Penal Law. The applicant was sentenced to four years in prison, of which three years were of actual imprisonment and one year was on probation. In addition the court ordered the applicant to compensate the complainant in the amount of NIS 10,000. At the time the conviction was handed down, at the request of the applicant’s counsel, the District Court stayed the date of commencement of the applicant’s sentence by one month. The application was brought before Justice Zamir who determined that execution of the prison sentence imposed would be stayed until a further decision was made on the application. Justice Zamir transferred the application to the President of the Court for a decision as to whether it would be appropriate to transfer the application to a decision before an extended panel of Justices, and the President of the Court ordered consideration of the application before an extended panel of nine justices.
Held: The Court held that it would be appropriate to delineate standards for applications to stay execution of prison sentences of persons who have been convicted and sentenced to a prison term and whose appeal is pending. The Court detailed those standards and considerations and held that while in the specific circumstances of the present case those standards dictate that the execution of the prison sentence should likely not have been stayed, nonetheless, due to the fact that the applicant has been free on bail for a long period of time since the sentence was handed down, and in consideration of the date that had been set for hearing the appeal, the Court did not in fact order the immediate imprisonment of the applicant.
The Court also considered, in a preliminary discussion, the application of the Public Defender’s Office to participate in the proceeding as a “friend of the court.” The Court held that the joining of the Public Defender as a “friend of the court” was to be allowed in this case.
Justice Kedmi agreed with the final outcome of the judgment but added qualifying comments. In addition, Justice Kedmi disagreed with the holding that allowed the Public Defender to be joined as a “friend of the court.”
Keywords
Administrative Law -- Discretion, Constitutional Law -- Prisoners’ Rights, Courts, Criminal Law -- Conviction, Criminal Law -- Enforcement
