Ofer - Stone Throwing, Holding and trading of combat materiel

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Email
Hava Halevi, Rama Yacobi

Translation: L.W.

Courtroom # 4

Judge: Major Shlomo Katz

Morid Muhammad Abed Elkader Abu Farah, Files: 2159/07 & 1642/08

Charge: Membership and activity [in an illegal organization]; providing shelter
Defence: Advocate Ahlam Hadad

No family members present.

Prosecutor: his brother concluded with the defendant that, if he, the brother, was arrested, the accused should take a bag of combat materiel from a storehouse belonging to the brother, and should hide it far from the house. And, when the brother was arrested, the defendant hid the bag.

She requests a severe penalty is requested, appropriate to the severity of the act.

Defence: the prosecutor brought no less than nine witnesses, and the fact that the defendant admitted saved the court precious time. This is also proves, that he understood the severity of his actions. The brother is older than the accused, and it is customary that a younger brother obeys the older sibling. The defendant did not know what was in the bag. And, in any event, when the soldiers came to the brother's house, the defendant went there on his own initiative and told the soldiers where the bag was hidden.

She requests that the punishment will be concurrent with the time that the defendant was in custody.

Defendant: my brother was arrested an hour after talking to me. He did not know that I helped the army, and told them about the bag. If I help the State of Israel, I will be punished; if not, then I will also be punished. I request that I be released, so that I can continue my studies.

I would even report on my father, [if necessary].

Judge: accepts the defence's request, and pronounces sentence exactly concurrent with the period in custody: 5 months and seventeen days - and 3 months probation during a period of 2 years. No fine is imposed.

There was no plea bargain in this trial.

At this point there was an interesting debate between the prosecutor and the judge, and she (the prosecutor) demanded postponement of release, to give her time to appeal the verdict, while he (the judge) was adamant that the defendant be released that same day. After discussion, the judge acceded to the prosecution's request and granted her till 17:00 that afternoon.

In conversation with the defence attorney, we wondered about the event. How is it possible that a brother informs on his brother? She (the defence attorney) said that if he had not led the soldiers to the hiding place of the bag, they would have broken into the house and destroyed its contents, and would certainly have arrested the whole family. Therefore he preferred to disclose the hiding place. The family members are aware of this logic, and they justify his action.

The trial proceeded in the afternoon, and the judge acquitted the defendant and released him to go home.

Naji Muhammad Amran Dar Nazel, File 2642/08

Majdi Daud Said Sliman, File 2640/08

Both from Arura, near Ramallah, in custody since 12.5.08. They wer not arrested at home,

but while walking together.

Charge: throwing of objects

Defence: Advocate Muhammad Na'amanah

Prosecutor: the defendants threw stones together with others at a military vehicle, with the intent of hitting it. The offence is serious.

She requests, based on precedents, 10 months imprisonment + probation + a fine.

Defence: the prosecution's demand is based on severe precedents. But there are precedents,

in which the sentence was 3-5 months only for the same offence. The two were incriminated by others. During the interrogation, they did not confess to the offence with which they are charged, and only did so after the defence advised them so. He, therefore, requests an appropriate punishment to the act, especially since there is no evidence that either of them actually threw stones, and since no damage was done.

He, therefore, requests, that the punishment will not exceed 3-4 months, and that the fine to be imposed should be in accordance, since a fine is intended to compensate for damage, of which there was none.

The defendants did not wish to say anything.

Judge: the defendants confessed to the act at the first opportunity, already at the stage of extension of remand, thereby saving the court valuable time.

Sentence: 100 days imprisonment, dating from the day of arrest + 3 months probation for a period of 2 years.

No fine was imposed.