Search
  • dwaldman33

Police apologize, request not to pay legal expenses


Honenu Attorney Adi Keidar; Photo credit: Honenu


Thursday, February 25, 2021, 12:17 Following sharp criticism leveled by Natzrat Magistrates Court Judge Moran Margalit at the Central Unit of Yehuda and Shomron Police for their conduct regarding the court and the detainees in the case summarized below, and his decision that the Central Unit of Yehuda and Shomron Police Commander, Dror Avada, must provide the court with answers regarding the case within seven days, Commander Avada replied to the court. In his response he mentioned failures by the Central Unit of Yehuda and Shomron Police and stated, “I apologize that particularly in this serious case, the facts were not brought before the judge in a clear and salient manner.” At the conclusion of his response, Commander Avada said that the correct conclusions would be reached in light of the sharp criticism leveled at the police for their conduct in the case, and requested that Judge Margalit not impose legal expenses on the Israeli Police, despite their faulty conduct. Initially, on February 14 and 15, the Central Unit of Yehuda and Shomron Police, with the GSS, detained five suspects. At a February 19 court deliberation, all of the detainees were released, except for one minor. Judge Margalit leveled unprecedented criticism at the representative of the Central Unit of Yehuda and Shomron Police, Avi Tivoni, for the police treatment of the detainees. Judge Margalit stated that Tivoni concealed information from the court, replied to the court insolently, did not allow proper handling of a day of deliberations, and violated the detainees’ rights. In his decision, Judge Margalit ordered the Central Unit of Yehuda and Shomron Police Commander to provide the court with answers regarding the case within seven days, and commented, “I have never encountered such chutzpah during deliberations.” Honenu Attorney Adi Keidar: “I expect the court to impose heavy expenses on the Israeli Police, who by their conduct caused not only contempt of court, but more importantly the unnecessary remand of four individuals, some of whom are heads of household, for an additional night under severe conditions, in what turned out to be a false and superfluous detention.”

0 views0 comments