Background
Justice Khaled Kabub heard this appeal under section 53 of the Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Powers – Detention), 5756-1996 (the Detention Law). The appellant challenged the Jerusalem District Court’s 2 September 2026 decision in מ”ת 1124-10-25 (Judge A. Persky), which denied his request for renewed review of his detention conditions. An indictment filed on 3 October 2025 charged unlawful transportation under the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952; six counts of המתה בקלות דעת (causing death through recklessness, a qualified rendering); three counts of חבלה חמורה (serious injury, a qualified rendering); and obstruction of justice.
According to the allegations, on 8 September 2025 the appellant transported two unlawful residents for payment despite an unallayed suspicion that they were terrorists or criminals. After he dropped them near Ramot Junction, they allegedly carried out a shooting attack in which six people were killed and three injured. Upon learning of the attack, the appellant allegedly broke and discarded his telephone. On 28 October 2025, the first-instance court (Judge M. Borshtein) ordered detention until the end of proceedings, finding prima facie evidence and that the charged offenses did not justify examining an alternative. The Supreme Court twice extended detention by 90 days under section 62, most recently in President Y. Amit’s 29 September 2026 decision in בהמ”ע 58633-09-26, which ordered detention from 1 October 2026 or until judgment in ת”פ 1107-10-25, whichever came first.
The appellant sought renewed review on 9 June 2026, citing a year in custody, no criminal record, his medical condition, expected delay, and alleged evidentiary erosion following paraphrases supplied to the defense. A detention report filed on 30 August 2026 did not recommend release to the proposed alternative, assessing a risk of repeated unlawful conduct and doubting whether the proposed supervisors could serve as authority figures. The District Court denied the request principally on that report and rejected the erosion claim, while ordering an immediate Israel Prison Service medical examination.
The Court’s Holding
After reviewing the written materials and hearing the parties, Justice Kabub dismissed the appeal. The principal renewed-review ground was passage of time under section 52(a). He cautioned that the appellant’s detention since 8 September 2025 should not be minimized and that the proceedings had been delayed and protracted, not solely because of the appellant: “the appellant was prevented from meeting at the outset”; delivery of the paraphrases took time; and a minor trial occurred before the defense case opened. The quoted restriction is מנוע מפגש; describing the meeting as one with counsel is an interpretation, not additional Hebrew wording.
The decisive consideration was the proceedings’ present posture, not elapsed time alone. Completion of testimony and summations remained scheduled for 15 November 2026. With judgment “just around the corner,” and without minimizing even one day of detention, the Court held that passage of time—ordinarily a proper reason to consider an alternative when substantial proceedings remain—had lost most of its force in this case and did not shift the balance. If conclusion of the proceedings were materially delayed beyond expectations, the appellant retained the possibility of returning to the first-instance court, which the Court trusted to address the matter seriously.
The Court separately found no error warranting intervention in the District Court’s reasoned adoption of the probation-service report. It rejected the evidentiary-erosion claim on substantive grounds and added that, in any event, its place appeared to be in the main proceedings nearing conclusion. Distinctly, the manner of the appellant’s appearance for testimony was not a Detention Law consideration and was left to the court trying the main case.
Key Takeaways
- Passage of time did not justify release here because testimony and summations were imminent; the Court did not announce a general rule for every prolonged detention.
- The evidentiary-erosion claim failed on substantive grounds, with a further qualified observation that its place appeared to be in the main proceedings.
- The manner of testimony was separately held not to be a Detention Law consideration and was reserved to the trial court.
Why It Matters
The decision ties renewed review to both custody’s duration and the trial’s current stage, while expressly preserving the seriousness of prolonged detention and the possibility of a further application if completion is materially delayed. It also distinguishes the substantive rejection of evidentiary erosion from the categorical treatment of testimony arrangements.
The appeal was dismissed. The decision was given on 24 Heshvan 5787, 4 November 2026.