Background
Ghazi Farhat and Tamer Farhat were indicted in the Jerusalem District Court on July 31, 2025, for allegedly committing firearms trafficking, carrying, possession, and shooting offenses together. The prosecution’s case rests primarily on their dealings with an undercover police agent, the principal prosecution witness, as well as several additional witnesses, some of whom provide technical evidence.
The Probation Service examined proposed alternatives to custodial detention for Ghazi Farhat. It first considered confinement at his home in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Isawiya and later considered a location outside Jerusalem in Mishor Adumim. Although it regarded the proposed supervisors as suitable, it concluded that neither location adequately addressed Farhat’s dangerousness and recommended continued detention. On July 13, 2026, Farhat consented to detention through the conclusion of the proceedings, while reserving the ability to seek reconsideration if circumstances changed. The District Court ordered detention accordingly. His co-defendant, by contrast, was detained under electronic monitoring.
The State filed its second application under section 62 of the Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Powers—Detentions), 1996, seeking another 90-day extension of Farhat’s detention. The police agent had completed direct examination, and cross-examination was scheduled within the requested extension period. Farhat argued that the overall duration of the trial remained uncertain and requested another Probation Service report addressing still more distant alternatives in central Israel.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Daphne Barak-Erez granted the State’s application and extended Farhat’s detention for 90 days beginning July 29, 2026, or until judgment in Jerusalem District Court Criminal Case 86457-07-25, whichever occurs first. The Court considered Farhat’s alleged dangerousness and the expected progress of the trial during the extension period.
The Court declined to order another Probation Service report at this stage. Farhat had only recently consented to detention through the proceedings, an up-to-date report already assessed his circumstances, he had not sought reconsideration from the District Court, and he presented no concrete alternative at the Supreme Court hearing.
The Court nevertheless stated that if Farhat submits a properly supported application to the District Court proposing an alternative more distant than those previously examined, the court should give it serious consideration. Justice Barak-Erez expressed no view on whether such an application should ultimately be granted.
Key Takeaways
- A recent consent to detention and an up-to-date Probation Service assessment weighed against commissioning another detention report during the section 62 extension proceeding.
- A defendant seeking consideration of a less restrictive alternative should present a concrete proposal and ordinarily pursue reconsideration before the trial court.
- The 90-day extension did not foreclose a later, properly supported request for a more geographically remote detention alternative.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Supreme Court’s approach to extended pretrial detention in a serious firearms prosecution: it considered both the defendant’s assessed dangerousness and the anticipated progress of the criminal trial, while leaving the trial court able to consider a concrete new alternative.
It also underscores that a section 62 extension proceeding is not automatically a fresh evaluation of hypothetical detention arrangements. Where recent assessments remain current, the defendant has consented to detention, and no specific new placement is offered, the Court may extend detention without ordering another report.