Ofer - Plea Bargain, Stone Throwing

Observers: 
Aya Kanyuk, Nitza Aminov (reporting)
30/03/2015
|
Morning

Translation: Marganit W.

 

Homes at Beit Ummar are empty of men and boys – this is what Hamda Abu Hashem said to me.

Hamda is the mother of Muhammad Abu Hashem and of H. – the boy set on by army dogs, who was later taken to Hadassah Hospital. The incident was captured on camerainfo-icon and the video went viral, a fact that apparently contributed to his release after almost three months in jail.

The other son, Muhammad, is in still in jail.

 

Judge: Major Sigal Turjeman

Prosecutor: Captain Alona Asher

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

Defendant: Muhammad Ahmed Halil Abu Hashem, ID 859493918 - Case 1767/15

 

Atty. Ramati explains that the indictment has been amended to cover a longer period in which the offense was allegedly committed. Thus, no alibi can be claimed [this refers to nebulous phrases like: “on such and such a date, or thereabout… or on such and such a place, or thereabout” – N.A.] However, the attorney stresses that the change and its implications will be taken into account. He plans to have an evidentiary trial and asks the court to schedule it on the same day as the hearing of Zein Abu Maria, before the same judge, so he could represent both together.

Memorandum hearing is set for 1.4.15.

 

Judge: Major Haim Balilty

Prosecutor: Captain Raphael Shafransky

Defense: Atty. Haled Al-Araj

Defendant: Eid Kamal Eid Kamal, ID 850862186 - Case 7245/15

 

Eid Kamal is charged that during the month of Ramadan 2014, together with others, he threw objects in the Rachel Tomb area. He and the others were also found in possession of pipe bombs.

 

As per a plea bargain the defendant received 9 months in jail – starting the day of arrest, 18- months suspended sentence for 5 years and 5000-shekel fine.

 

The prosecutor and the judge deemed this a lenient penalty. However, they accepted that he had no prior record and that the claim of possession of pipe bombs could not be sufficiently proved and therefore could not lead to conviction.

The judge explained the light sentence thus: “the sides were right to reach an agreement whereby harsher punishment will be meted out in the future (a reference to the 18-month suspended sentence in case of repeated offense).