Background
Chezky’ahu Tenenbaum was convicted under a plea agreement of making threats under Section 192 of the Penal Law and two counts of sexual harassment under Section 3(a)(4) of the Law to Prevent Sexual Harassment. Between 2019 and 2021, Tenenbaum initiated contact with three women through social media and dating applications.
The facts showed that he sexually harassed two of the women by sending crude messages, requesting sexual videos despite their refusals to comply, and continuing to harass them despite their repeated requests that he stop. Against a third woman, Tenenbaum made a threat stating “there will be another Eilat 3,” a reference to a rape incident in Eilat that had been publicized in the media.
The Peace Court sentenced Tenenbaum to eight months of imprisonment to be served through community service, along with conditional sentences and compensation of 3,000 shekels to each complainant. Tenenbaum appealed to the District Court, which rejected his appeal in a reasoned decision, finding no defect in the original judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court denied Tenenbaum’s petition for leave to appeal, holding that petitions in this “third round” are granted only in exceptional circumstances: either when a fundamental legal question of principle is raised that transcends the appellant’s personal interest, or when there is a genuine risk of miscarriage of justice. Alternatively, when the petition concerns sentence severity, leave is granted only when the punishment deviates extremely from sentencing policy or practice in similar cases. The Court found none of these circumstances present.
The Court determined that the case raises no fundamental legal question and no miscarriage of justice occurred. Both the Peace Court and District Court thoroughly and reasonably considered Tenenbaum’s case, referencing relevant precedent and weighing both aggravating factors (the deliberate, cold, sophisticated nature of the conduct; its duration; prior violent and sexual convictions) and mitigating factors (his guilty plea; his personal, family, and health circumstances). The eight-month community service sentence was not extreme given the totality of circumstances, particularly as it did not involve physical contact but occurred over an extended period despite repeated requests to cease. The Court also upheld the compensation component of the sentence.
Key Takeaways
- Leave to appeal in criminal matters requires either a novel legal question of principle or a genuine risk of miscarriage of justice—appellants cannot simply disagree with sentence severity.
- Online harassment and threats conducted over an extended period, though lacking physical contact, can warrant substantial criminal sentences, particularly when victims repeatedly requested the conduct stop.
- Sentencing courts properly consider both personal rehabilitation efforts outside formal probation and the extended duration of criminal conduct as aggravating factors.
- Prior violent and sexual convictions weigh heavily in sentencing decisions for sexual harassment and threats.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Israeli law’s serious treatment of online sexual harassment and threats, particularly in contexts where perpetrators target multiple victims over extended periods. The Supreme Court’s rejection of Tenenbaum’s appeal—based on the stringent standard for third-round review—clarifies that sentencing decisions will not be revisited simply because an appellant believes the penalty is too harsh, absent clear legal error or systemic injustice.
The decision also reflects evolving jurisprudence on virtual-space sexual offenses, treating sustained online harassment as a grave matter even without physical contact. The Court’s affirmation that such conduct, repeated across multiple victims and unresponsive to their objections, warrants community service sentences signals that Israeli courts will not discount the harm caused by persistent digital harassment and intimidation.