Background
The appellant was convicted in 2012 of raping a minor and obstructing an investigation. He was sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment, a suspended term, and compensation to the victim. The Supreme Court rejected his appeal in 2014. Shortly before his release in 2024, the Jerusalem District Court imposed a supervision order containing five restrictions, including prohibitions on sleeping under the same roof as minor girls and working in a position involving contact or proximity to them.
In September 2026, the State sought to extend the supervision order through April 4, 2029. It relied on a current assessment finding that the appellant continued to present a medium risk, the supervision unit’s recommendation, and a 2025 violation involving work undertaken without the supervising officer’s approval. The District Court granted the extension and declined to permit overnight stays at relatives’ homes when minor girls were present, citing the unchanged risk assessment, the appellant’s attitude toward his offenses, his lack of risk-reduction treatment, and doubts about whether relatives who believed he was innocent could enforce meaningful boundaries.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Daphne Barak-Erez dismissed the appeal. Although the Court acknowledged the genuine human difficulty created by the restriction—particularly because the appellant observed the Sabbath and could otherwise be left alone during Sabbaths and holidays—it held that the blanket overnight restriction should not be relaxed on the existing record.
The proper route was a new, focused assessment of the appellant’s risk specifically toward the minor girls living in his relatives’ homes. A favorable assessment excluding such a risk could support modification of the supervision order, while an adverse assessment could support retaining the restriction. The Court emphasized that progress depended on the appellant’s willingness to cooperate with that evaluation.
Key Takeaways
- The passage of time and generally successful supervision did not, by themselves, justify relaxing a restriction designed to protect minors where the assessed risk remained medium.
- Relatives’ approval as informed adult supervisors during daytime visits did not establish that they could adequately supervise overnight stays, particularly when they disputed the appellant’s guilt.
- A narrowly tailored risk assessment concerning identified minor family members may provide a basis for later modification of a supervision order.
Why It Matters
The decision shows that Israeli courts may preserve restrictive sex-offender supervision conditions despite significant effects on religious observance and family life when current professional evidence continues to identify a material risk. Individual hardship is relevant, but it does not replace an evidence-based assessment of danger to minors.
At the same time, the Court identified a practical path to reconsideration: a restriction may be revisited through a specific assessment addressing the people and circumstances involved, rather than through a generalized claim that supervision has proceeded successfully.