Government bill · 20th Knesset · published as law 16 January 2017
חוק סדר הדין הפלילי (תיקון מס' 77), התשע"ז-2017Criminal Procedure Law (Amendment No. 77), 2017 · automatic translation · suggest a correction
Status: התקבלה בקריאה שלישית
Topics: Courts and criminal law* · * from the Knesset's official law classification
Official summary of the law (Knesset)
The Criminal Procedure Law (Amendment No. 77), 2017 clarifies that the court of appeals has the authority to impose on a defendant any sentence that the previous court was entitled to impose, whether or not the defendant has begun serving the sentence imposed by the previous court or has completed serving it.
automatic translation · suggest a correction
Hebrew original
חוק סדר הדין הפלילי (תיקון מס' 77), התשע"ז-2017 מבהיר כי לבית המשפט שלערעור סמכות להשית על נאשם כל עונש שהערכאה הקודמת היתה רשאית להטיל, בין אם הנאשם החל לשאת את העונש שהשיתה עליו הערכאה הקודמת או סיים לשאתו, ובין אם לא.
Readings
- 2 August 2016 · First reading · להעביר את הצעת החוק לוועדההצעת חוק סדר הדין הפלילי (תיקון מס' 76) (סמכות בית המשפט שלערעור), התשע"ו - 2016Bill on the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment No. 76) (Court of Appeals Jurisdiction), 2016autoBill passed first reading24 for · 15 against
- 9 January 2017 · Third reading · אישור החוקהצעת חוק סדר הדין הפלילי (תיקון מס' 77), התשע"ז-2017Bill of Criminal Procedure (Amendment No. 77), 2017autoLaw passed46 for · 23 against
What was said in the plenum
The bill seeks to amend the Criminal Procedure Law so that an appellate court may impose on a defendant any sentence that the previous instance was authorized to give, even if the defendant has already begun or completed serving his sentence (for example, community service), following the Supreme Court ruling in the Ganani and Sarusi case that limited this authority. The discussion revolved around the question of whether this is a technical amendment that equalizes between a situation of imprisonment and a situation of a community service order, or an attempt to increase sentences against defendants at the request of the prosecution.
automatic translation · suggest a correction
Hebrew original
הצעת החוק מבקשת לתקן את חוק סדר הדין הפלילי כך שבית-משפט שלערעור יוכל להטיל על נאשם כל עונש שהערכאה הקודמת הייתה מוסמכת לתת, גם אם הנאשם כבר החל או סיים לרצות את עונשו (למשל עבודות שירות), בעקבות פסיקת בית-המשפט העליון בעניין גנני וסרוסי שהגבילה סמכות זו. הדיון נסב סביב השאלה האם מדובר בתיקון טכני שמשווה בין מצב של מאסר למצב של צו לשירות הציבור, או שמא בניסיון להחמיר עם נאשמים לבקשת הפרקליטות.
Arguments for
- Equality should be created between a situation in which a defendant is serving a prison sentence and a situation in which he is carrying out a community service order, so that in both cases the appellate instance would have the authority to increase the sentence if it accepts the appeal.שרת המשפטים איילת שקד, Nissan Slomiansky (Jewish Home)
- The court itself approached the Knesset and asked it to interpret and regulate the issue through legislation, and it is appropriate for the Knesset to respond to this request and fulfill its role as the legislative authority.Nissan Slomiansky (Jewish Home)
- The amendment does not change the established case law according to which the appellate instance does not exhaust the sentence against the defendant, but only removes an absolute and illogical restriction that was created following the interpretation of Section 71A(a).Nissan Slomiansky (Jewish Home)
Arguments against
- This involves a change to an entrenched fundamental rule in criminal law, according to which the appellate instance does not exhaust the sentence and does not substitute its discretion for that of the first instance, merely because of a request by the prosecution.Osama Saadi (Joint List)
- The true purpose, both declared and undeclared, of the amendment is to increase the severity of sentences against defendants, not merely to equalize between legal situations.Osama Saadi (Joint List)
- The rulings that the amendment seeks to change (Ganani and Sarusi) apply only to isolated cases that do not justify a change in legislation.Osama Saadi (Joint List)
Who spoke (3)
| Member | Faction | Readings | Speeches | In the final vote |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| שרת המשפטים איילת שקד | — | First reading | 2 | — |
| Osama Saadi | Joint List opposition | First reading, Third reading | 4 | against |
| Nissan Slomiansky | Jewish Home coalition | Third reading | 5 | for |
An automatic summary of the plenum transcripts: the debate on the bill at every reading it was voted on. Arguments are given as the speakers made them; this is not an assessment. The list of speakers comes from the transcript, without a model. Transcripts of the sittings: 1, 2 · write to the author
Reservations to the second reading
No reservations were filed to this bill.
Asked to speak: Osama Saadi (Joint List), Uri Maklev (United Torah Judaism), Revital Swid (Zionist Union), Michal Rozin (Meretz), Zehava Galon (Meretz), Ilan Gilon (Meretz), Esawi Frej (Meretz), Tamar Zandberg (Meretz)
Committee version for the second and third reading (PDF) · write to the author
Reservations, sections and other votes (1)
In order. Votes on reservations and individual sections are shown separately from the vote on the bill as a whole.
- 9 January 2017 · Second reading · קריאה שנייההצעת חוק סדר הדין הפלילי (תיקון מס' 77), התשע"ז-2017Bill of Criminal Procedure (Amendment No. 77), 2017auto46 for · 21 againstVote on sections of the bill