Background
Cohen was charged with attempted robbery after allegedly accompanying a minor to meet a man who had paid her for sexually explicit content. According to the indictment, Cohen struck the complainant in the eye and head and demanded that he pay the minor, causing several facial injuries. Cohen accepted that prima facie evidence placed him at the scene and showed that he attacked the complainant, but disputed whether the evidence established the intent required for attempted robbery.
The Beersheba District Court found sufficient prima facie evidence, reasoning that advance planning was unnecessary and that the evidence linked Cohen’s violence to his desire to obtain the complainant’s money. It also found grounds for detention based on dangerousness and noted Cohen’s recent criminal proceedings, including a conviction for violating house-arrest conditions at his mother’s home. The Probation Service assessed a high risk of further boundary-breaking and criminal conduct, found his mother insufficiently aware of his risk factors, and declined to recommend house arrest at her home. The District Court therefore ordered Cohen detained in custody through the conclusion of the proceedings.
Cohen appealed, seeking detention under electronic monitoring at his mother’s home. He argued that another defendant had received electronic monitoring, that his alleged conduct was spontaneous and at the lower end of robbery offenses, and that the proposed additional supervisor had not been assessed by the Probation Service.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Daphne Barak-Erez dismissed the appeal. She held that Cohen presently required clear boundaries and that supervision at his mother’s home could not provide them, particularly given his prior violation of house-arrest conditions there. The proposed additional supervisor could not supervise Cohen alone, so there was no complete, concrete alternative presently available for the Court to assess.
The Court nevertheless found merit in the Probation Service’s suggestion of a treatment-based placement and encouraged Cohen and his mother to consider it. If Cohen applies for such an arrangement, the District Court must order a supplemental probation report evaluating a treatment alternative and then decide the application on its merits.
Key Takeaways
- Electronic monitoring was inappropriate because the proposed home-supervision arrangement could not provide the clear boundaries Cohen required.
- A prior violation of house-arrest conditions at the same proposed residence weighed heavily against renewed reliance on that arrangement.
- The dismissal does not foreclose release to a suitable treatment facility; Cohen may seek a supplemental probation assessment of that option.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that electronic monitoring is not an adequate substitute for custody unless the proposed supervisors and residence together form a reliable, complete arrangement capable of addressing the defendant’s specific risks. A negative probation assessment and prior breach of supervision at the proposed home can be decisive.
At the same time, the Court distinguished an unsuitable home-arrest proposal from a potentially viable treatment alternative, preserving a route for reconsideration if Cohen demonstrates willingness to enter an appropriate therapeutic framework.