Judge Avraham Rubin, vice-president of the Magistrates Court
in Jerusalem, ordered the police to compensate a minor from the Samaria
(Shomron) outpost community Shevut Ami, after an investigator of the Ariel
police "forgot" to inform his parents that he had been arrested.
The minor, whose name was not released for publication, was
arrested in March 2011 together with other youth at Shevut Ami. Police claimed
their presence there was in violation of orders designating it a closed
military area.
While his companions were arrested on suspicion of hitting
police officers, the minor was only detained for questioning at first. Later, a
police captain told him he was being arrested. Unlike his companions, the minor
wasn't brought to court, and was only freed from custody the following evening.
Attorney Itamar Ben-Gvir represented the minor in a damages
suit against the police, saying "it is unthinkable that a minor should
disappear in the middle of the night without the possibility of letting his
parents know he's been arrested or detained. The police must be strict on every
letter of the law, and if they won't, then we'll be forced to sue them."
Judge Rubin turned down the claim against the allegedly
unnecessary arrest of the minor, positing that while the minor was briefly
detained illegally, his arrest was legal. However, the second part of the
lawsuit was accepted, as the judge determined the police investigator didn't
inform the minor's parents of his arrest as required by law.
The court ordered the police to compensate the minor with
2,000 shekels ($570), as well as 1,000 shekels ($285) for the lawyer's
professional fees.
Ben-Gvir heralded the ruling as "an important
precedent, and I hope that the police in general and particularly in Judea and
Samaria, where their investigators aren't always strict regarding human rights,
will now be more strict."
The police investigator's testimony did not hold up to close
scrutiny.
Judge Rubin remarked that the investigator claimed to have
called the parents around 11 p.m. when the arrest was made, he claimed to have
obtained their phone number at the start of investigating the minor.
However, when confronted with the fact that the investigation began at 4:14 a.m., the officer admitted to not remembering when he talked to the parents.
However, when confronted with the fact that the investigation began at 4:14 a.m., the officer admitted to not remembering when he talked to the parents.
According to the minor's account, which the court accepted,
he was allowed to call his parents around 4 a.m. with the start of the
investigation, but they didn't answer his early morning call. The minor's
father said he only found out about his son's arrest two days later from one of
his friends.
Statements from the court read "we are dealing with
someone who was a minor at the time of the event, and as such the court has
great interest in ensuring that his rights will be guarded."
The police claim that the minor's presence in a closed
military area, a supposed criminal act, allowed them to turn down his lawsuit,
was rejected by the judge who noted not a single court ruling supports this
approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment