Arab boy killer's name published: Yosef Ben David

The name of the accused in the kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu-Hadir has been released for publication. Supreme Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein rejected all of the appellant's arguments and allowed the publication of the name of Yosef Chaim Ben David.

The name of Ben David, the main suspect in the kidnapping and killing of Mohammed Abu-Hadir, was banned up to date for publication, at the request of his lawyer.

Last Thursday, an indictment was filed against Yosef Chaim Ben David and two minors, in which offenses involving the abduction and murder of the child Mohammed Abu Hadir were attributed to them. With the indictment, a request for their arrest until the end of proceedings in the case, was filed.

In a hearing held before the Jerusalem District Court, the appellant's attorney asked that the court order the hedging his name and any other identifying detail, given the fear of vendetta and exposing family members, who were not involved in the case, to real danger. This was objected to by the state attorney, noting that the Israeli police had no information on the danger of this kind. The learned President in the District Court ordered, in view of the principle of public trial and the public's right to know, the publication of the appellant's identity.

On the same day it was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the appellant alleged that the family is threatened and police are aware of it and opened a briefing; It was further argued that a Molotov cocktail was thrown at the house of the appellant's sister. It was claimed that the exposure might impact the minor defendants in the case.

Click here for mobile and tablets

Following this a warrant of execution was immediately issued until a decision on the appeal. The appeal was to be heard the next day on Friday, and the hearing was postponed until today in view of the call to service of attorney Keidar representing the appellant.

In the hearing today (Sunday), attorney Werzberger (who took on the representation of appellant in the absence of Mr. Keidar), said that there was a place to examine in depth the appellant's argument regarding the concern for his family, and so with all the difficulties of non-publication of the outstanding case. Secondly, the exposure of the name necessarily reveals the identity of the minors who are accused in the case, and therefore balance requires the hedging of the appellant's name. Another option suggested is postponing the publication for a month or two until the end of the first period of the indictment, to prevent life threatening.

Conversely, the counsel for the State Attorney Uri Korb, claimed that he checked concretely with the police and security forces, and there is no information that substantiates the claim of threats or Molotov cocktails throwing. "On the contrary, the police decided to give the family advice for preventative behavior and they were told explicitly that they are not threatened." The issue of the Molotov cocktail does not, it was said, have any reference. Beyond that, it is argued, there are risks that society takes on, and the case in question gas great public interest; the family of the deceased do not trust the system, and non-publication will intensify this. "When I asked, Mr. Korb said that in any case of a threat the police address for complaints – is the investigative unit of Jerusalem, as well as any police station nearest by."

It was also argued that appellant's family is being threatened; But even if it so allegedly one can not rule out the possibility that there will be those who might want to harm the family (the appellant himself is in detention), and if we see it as "someone else", it was declared - as mentioned – by the state counsel, that there is no indication of threat, and rumors were not confirmed after testing. This test was made with the police and security officials specifically relevant even after the hearing at the trial court, where it was claimed inadequate inspection. In these circumstances, I do not see fit to grant the appeal. I considered, but I saw no point of postponing the publication as suggested by the defense attorney.

As for the argument that disclosing the appellant's name would expose minors on whose details is a statutory prohibition, the judge wrote that "even if there is partial taste in the grounds, and it raises a serious and known question of the inclusion of adults and juveniles together in one charge (which was dealt with by the Commission of Justice Rotlevy) - here in these circumstances, given the legal situation, this reasoning does not have to prevent the publication of the adult."

"However," the judge added, "I think it right - as was also apparent in the hearing – to note and emphasize that the police and security agencies must be aware of the information of the threat of one kind or another for the appellant's family, as G-d forbid may be, in a manner that would reduce the risk as much as possible, in addition to the briefing given and to be given regarding the behavior. The central unit Jerusalem and of course every station in the family's surroundings are "contact points" to which the family will contact as needed, and the police and security agencies are trusted to do as much as possible to prevent injury to innocent persons as may be such a threat. "

"Data stated," ruled Superior Court Judge Rubinstein, "I therefore do not agree to the appeal. Publication is as from this decision."

'בחדרי' גם ברשתות החברתיות - הצטרפו!