Background
On 15 November 2021, an indictment was filed in the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court (Criminal Case 35851-11-21) against Dmitri Fyodorov, charging him with attempted murder (one count of which was later dropped in an amended indictment of 16 July 2023), aggravated grievous bodily harm in aggravated circumstances, conspiracy to commit a felony, carrying a weapon, and assaulting a police officer. A detention-until-end-of-proceedings order was issued by the District Court on 11 January 2023, after Fyodorov conceded the existence of prima facie evidence and grounds for detention. His detention was subsequently extended periodically by the Supreme Court under Section 62 of the Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Powers – Arrests), 5756-1996, which governs pre-trial detention beyond nine months.
As the proceedings lengthened, the Supreme Court ordered — during the eleventh extension hearing on 5 August 2025 — that the Probation Service prepare a detention-alternative assessment report. The report, submitted in November 2025, was negative “in a categorical manner in all aspects of examination and assessment,” with no recommendation for any detention alternative, including electronic monitoring. On 17 November 2025, the District Court rejected Fyodorov’s motion for reconsideration, also taking into account his serious criminal record, his violent charges, and the fact that while in pre-trial detention he had been convicted of maliciously destroying security cameras at the detention facility, resulting in an eight-month actual-imprisonment sentence (execution stayed pending his appeal in Criminal Appeal 79183-07-25). A separate indictment was also filed against him for threatening prison guards while in custody (Criminal Case 25849-06-25). The Supreme Court rejected his appeal against continued detention on 10 December 2025 and simultaneously ordered the twelfth extension.
The current application — the thirteenth — was brought by the State under Section 62, seeking a 150-day extension from 26 May 2026. The State argued that the cumulative weight of the charges, an ever-growing criminal record accrued during detention, and the negative probation report demonstrated continued and clear dangerousness. The trial had reached the defense-evidence phase; the State and the presiding panel expressed readiness to conclude proceedings, with hearing dates already scheduled, and estimated the trial would conclude within the requested extension period. Defense counsel countered that Fyodorov had been incarcerated for approximately four and a half years, that investigation materials had been withheld for two years and supplied only near the close of the prosecution’s case, and that any delays were attributable to the prosecution, not the defense.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Khaled Kabub granted the application and extended Fyodorov’s detention by 150 days from 26 May 2026, or until judgment in the District Court proceedings, whichever comes first. Applying the established balancing framework, the court weighed the accused’s right to liberty against public safety and the orderly conduct of criminal proceedings, taking into account the time elapsed, the degree of dangerousness, the gravity of the charges, and the pace of proceedings.
The court acknowledged that the prolonged duration of the proceedings was “uncomfortable,” but held that this was not the exceptional case in which the passage of time alone justifies release. The negative probation report, demonstrating clear dangerousness “even at this time,” combined with the severity of the original charges, a heavy prior criminal record for violent offenses, and Fyodorov’s in-custody conduct weighed decisively against release or a detention alternative. The court emphasized that Fyodorov’s conduct while detained — destroying security cameras and allegedly threatening prison guards that he would harm them upon release — evidenced “clear dangerousness, an inability to accept authority, and open defiance of law enforcement.”
On the pace of proceedings, the court was satisfied that the case was “in the final stretch,” with two evidence hearings already scheduled in the week of the decision, and that both the prosecution and the trial court were doing everything within their power to bring the case to a prompt conclusion.
Key Takeaways
- Under Section 62 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the Supreme Court must balance the detained accused’s liberty right against public safety and procedural integrity; the passage of time is a significant factor but does not automatically entitle a defendant to release or a detention alternative.
- Conduct committed while in pre-trial detention — including new criminal convictions and pending indictments — is a proper and weighty consideration in assessing ongoing dangerousness and in deciding whether to continue extended detention.
- A categorical negative probation-service report finding no viable detention alternative, including electronic monitoring, provides strong support for continued custody even where proceedings have been substantially delayed.
- This was the thirteenth judicially supervised extension of a single accused’s pre-trial detention, illustrating that Israeli law permits extended pre-trial custody where the record demonstrates sustained dangerousness and an imminent conclusion to trial.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates how Israeli courts apply the Section 62 framework in protracted serious-crime proceedings. It confirms that a defendant’s in-custody criminal behavior — including violence against prison property and threatening corrections officers — will be treated as independent evidence of dangerousness that can justify continued detention even as the cumulative length of pre-trial incarceration approaches and exceeds four years. The ruling underscores that there is no bright-line rule mandating release or a detention alternative based on elapsed time alone; rather, the court conducts a holistic assessment that gives considerable weight to post-arrest conduct and expert risk assessments.
For practitioners and policymakers, the decision also highlights the tension inherent in long-running criminal prosecutions: while the court expressed discomfort with the duration and noted delays attributable to both sides, it declined to use release as a remedy for systemic delay when dangerousness remains acute. The case will continue to be a reference point in Israeli pre-trial detention jurisprudence, particularly in cases involving defendants who commit further offenses while in custody awaiting trial on serious violent charges.