Ofer - Stone Throwing

Translation: Marganit W.

Courtroom 1

Case No. 3850/07 - Muhammad Mahmoud Hamdan Al Wahsh

Status: Arguments for sentencing

Judges: Lieut.-Col. Ronen Atzmon (presiding), Major Hilit Bar-on Biber, Major Amir Dahan

Prosecutor: Lieutenant Tom Mor

Defense: Atty. Jamil Hatib

The defendant is charged with aggravated assault: throwing a rock at a civilian vehicle. The rock hit a (female) passenger fracturing several facial bones. According to an affidavit submitted to the court, she has lost sensation in one side of her face, her hearing and sight were impaired, she has nightmares and requires psychiatric medication. This serious allegation resulted in a severe indictment and a three-judge panel.

For all the unusual decorum of the session - (due to the panel of judges) and the splendid isolation of the young, skinny defendant (who tried to draw encouragement from his older brother sitting alone in the audience), everything proceeded according to the usual routine.

The prosecutor cites a precedent involving a moving car where a passenger was seriously injured, lapsing into a permanent coma. The two defendants in that case were sentenced to 17 years in prison. The prosecutor thinks this is a fit punishment in this case too.

The defense tries to dismiss the similarity between the cases. He claims the case should be treated like any other rock-throwing charge, which normally results in a few months incarceration. The unfortunate result of the act was unintended; this must be taken into account, as well as the young age of the defendant, who was seventeen when the incident occurred two years ago, and who has been in detention since then.

At this stage, the defense makes a surprise move (later debated among attorneys who represent Palestinians in the courts). Atty. Hatib suggests that the defendant's family compensate the victim, hoping that the court will take into consideration the defendant's remorse and the compensation when handing down judgment. The judges want to know the sum offered and how to guarantee payment. After conferring with the defendant and his brother, Hatib offers 15.000 shekels to be paid to the victim prior to sentencing. He moves to postpone the decision for a month to allow the family to collect the money. He states that the punishment should not exceed three and a half years.

The judges argue among themselves. Justice Dahan consults the computer for a few minutes, then pronounces that he has found precedents of similar cases where compensation was accepted. But the sums were much higher, thirty, fifty thousand shekels. Chief justice Atzmon suggests the defense raise the sum. The judges determine the manner of payment and set the sentencing for 24.9.09.

Reports of Atty. Hatib's unusual motion quickly spreads among the attorneys and stir a controversy: the defendants' economic situation is dire. A sum of 15,000 shekels will plunge the family into debt for a long time. Such a decision may entice judges to include a compensation clause in future verdicts, resulting in discrimination between defendants who can afford such fines and others who are penniless. It may also encourage families to undertake commitments they are unable to honor. The question that hovered over the Ofer Court that day was: should an attorney pursue personal success in a particular court case, or consider the implications and ramifications of such results on the penal practices that apply to other defendants.