District Court - Palestinians staying illegally in Israel, Appeal
Translation: Marganit W.
Jerusalem District Court
Presiding judge: Nava Ben Or
Appeal in the case of Adnan Abu Aram from Yata
Adnan is 40 years old. He is barred by the police from entering Israel until 13.4.17.
His earlier appeal was rejected. Encouraged (and probably financed) by his boss who needs him – he decided to appeal to the district court.
His police record is as follows: he was convicted three times for entering Israel without a permit, between 2001-2012. Altogether he sat 7 months in jail.
There are also ten “closed charges” (i.e., without trial) against him for the same violation. The last charge was in 2010. This history is quite typical for a man his age.
Adnan is the sole provider for his wife, seven children and a sick mother.
He is represented by Atty. Shafik Abu-Hani from Rahat, who is very impressive and well versed in Adnan’s case. He is familiar with police procedures and understands why his client could not appeal to the police until 13.4.15.
The attorney is clever and pleasant and ingratiates himself to the prosecutor, Moshe Weininger, and to Justice Nava Ben Or.
Atty. Shafik describes the hardship Adnan’s family endures. He “understands” Israel’s security problems and “the reasoning behind the procedures.” There is penalty for entering Israel during the restraint period, but even during that period Adnan managed to obtain a work permit (which was promptly taken from him at the checkpoint), which proves that he poses no danger.
Thus, says the attorney, “we can only throw ourselves at the mercy of the court.” He asks to shorten the restraint period.
Atty. Weininger: I am trying to understand why he was given a permit during the restraint period, and what is the basis for his application for a permit now.
There are three options: technical appeal, substantive appeal and humanitarian grounds.
Judge: He is invoking humanitarian grounds: to support his family. Thank God he does not have more serious reasons.
Atty. Weininger: The laws of the land must be obeyed. This is a criminal violation. Let him write again and explain his problems once more (in other words, repeat what he wrote in the rejected appeal and in this present appeal).
Judge: There is nothing for him to explain. He should not repeat the process again.
The question is: can you give a permit to a person who is not a security risk, despite the procedure, because the penalty does not fit the violation.
There are accepted criteria, but here is a particular case and the question is: Is it only about deterrence.
The defense moves to shorten the restraint period.
Weininger: We’ll check (with the police, presumably) to see if we can shorten (the restraint period). We’ll notify the defense.
Judge: Discuss it between the two of you (Weininger and Abu Hani) and let me know by 20.9.15. Then a sentence will be given.
We’ll follow up and report after 20.9.15.