Judge sends men who fired flares at PM’s home to house arrest, doubts ‘terror’ charge
Haifa court judge says ‘no apparent evidence’ for terrorism accusations, warns of ‘dark results’ if such claims wielded too freely
Jeremy Sharon is The Times of Israel’s legal affairs and settlements reporter
The Haifa District Court on Thursday ordered four anti-government activists accused of firing flares at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s residence in Caesarea released to house arrest, after almost six weeks in detention.
Judge Zaid Falah wrote in his decision that he was unconvinced by the grave terror charges against the men, and gave warning that using such charges too lightly could lead to “dark results” with regards to freedom of expression and protest in the country.
The judge did, however, write that he believed charges of recklessness and negligence by the men were well founded.
Falah ruled that the four defendants could be transferred to house arrest in their own homes with electronic tagging.
Following the decision, the State Attorney’s Office initially said it was “considering it steps,” implying it could appeal to the Supreme Court. However, prosecutors decided Thursday to not take any further action, and the men were released on Thursday evening.
Rear Adm. (res.) Ofer Doron, 63, his son Gal Doron, 27, and two other longtime anti-government activists, Itay Yaffe, 62, and Amir Sadeh, 62, were indicted in the Haifa District Court earlier this month on charges of carrying out an act of terror through the reckless and negligent use of fire, and attempted arson.
The first two men were also charged with obstruction of justice for initially lying to investigators about who had fired one of the flares.
The fact that the indictment leveled terrorism charges at the four men had lent justification to the state’s demand they be held in custody until the end of legal proceedings against them.
In his ruling on Thursday, the judge wrote that he did not believe the terror allegations could be justified.
He also noted that the four men had clean criminal records. In light of “the weakness of the evidence” for terrorism; “their full cooperation” under investigation; and the regret they had expressed, Falah determined that the danger they pose was low, and that they could be relied upon to comply with house arrest conditions.
On November 16, the four men made their way to an area several hundred meters (yards) west of the Netanyahu’s residence and fired two flares into the sky, one landed 150 meters from the prime minister’s home and scorched some leaves and the other landed at the entrance to the house’s courtyard and was immediately extinguished by a security guard.
No one was harmed in the incident, no damage was caused, and the Netanyahus were not home at the time.
The activists were arrested the same day and were kept in custody since then.
The terror charges against the four men, which carry hefty prison sentences upon conviction, were strongly criticized in some quarters as a politicized step which could have a chilling effect on anti-government protests.
And in his decision on Thursday, Falah made clear that he, too, was highly skeptical of the justification for terror charges.
“The requirement for fulfilling the conditions of an act of terror is [an act that] ‘coerces the government’ and not ‘an act that applies pressure on a government,’” wrote Falah.
“Otherwise any protest of any type… which is accompanied by an additional crime such as violence, is likely to be included under the cover of ‘an act of terror,’” he continued.
“The slippery slope is likely to lead to dark results — and this is not what the legislature intended when it held an in-depth debate and chose the word ‘coerce’ and not more complex language, in order to avoid the danger of broadening the incidents which could come under the definition of an act of terror.”
Falah concluded that he did not believe there was enough evidence to convict the men on terror charges.
He did, however, write that there is apparent evidence that the defendants may be guilty of the recklessness and negligence charges since, he said, they fired the flares “in the general direction of the prime minister’s residence” and in the knowledge that there were security service personnel in that area and that the flares could endanger them.
He also said he did not accept their claim that they had sought to fire the flares over a nearby protest compound and not the prime minister’s home.
Falah noted that there was a “logical contradiction” in alleging a crime of recklessness and negligence with a deliberate arson attempt. He acknowledged that there was evidence with the potential to convict the defendants on the arson charge, but argued that evidence was not especially strong.
“The State Attorney’s Office will study the court’s decision and its treatment of the crimes attributed to the defendants and will weigh its position on the issue,” the State Attorney’s Office said in response to the decision.
