Ramon indictment more severe than Katsav's, says Beinish
Hinting that Mazuz let former president off easy, Supreme Court president says, 'Acts describes in Katsav's indictment are not considered sex offenses.' In hearing on petitions against plea bargain signed with former president, Beinish demands to receive original draft indictment
In an unusual remark, Beinish added that "the acts described in Katsav's indictment are not considered sex offenses."
Beinish made the remark after Attorney Orna Lin, who represents one of the complainants against Katsav, compared the punishment in the Katsav and Ramon cases.
According to estimates, Beinish implied that Attorney General Menachem Mazuz chose to let Katsav get off easy, despite his remarks that the former president "acted like a serial sex offender."
The petitions were discussed by an expanded panel of five judges headed by Beinish. The other judges on the panel are Eliezer Rivlin, Ayala Procaccia, Edmond Levy and Asher Grunis.
Attorney Yehuda Resler, who filed a petition together with Attorney Kinneret Barashi on behalf of complainant A who worked at the President's Residence, said at the start of the hearing, "We will try and convince you that the decision to close the case of A from the President's Residence is extremely unreasonable and I have yet to encounter such an unreasonable decision."
At a certain stage, Beinish asked, "Where is the draft indictment? Didn’t we get it? Do you plan to present it?"
A representative for the State Prosecutor's Office replied, "The draft is an internal document. We would be happy to hand it over, but we would not like to see it published."
Beinish made it clear that she demands to receive the draft "unless someone has any objections."
According to the plea bargain, the former president will admit that he committed severe sex offenses, but Attorney General Menachem Mazuz decided that Katsav would not serve jail time and would only receive a suspended sentence.
The High Court usually expands its panels when dealing with petitions addressing complex issues. The court wants the decision to be made by a panel of as many judges as possible in order for each judge's part in the final decision to be smaller.
Mazuz: Deal due to lack of solid evidence
Last week, the State Prosecutor's Office presented its response to the petitions filed against the plea bargain. In the response, Attorney General Mazuz noted that the primary reason the his office opted for a now-controversial plea bargain with Katsav instead of pursuing the charges in the original indictment in a court of law was due to the lack of solid evidence.
Mazuz told the court that there was no doubt that Katsav and complainant A had an intimate relationship. According to the attorney general, even Katsav's attorney conceded this during a hearing, claiming that this relationship was completely consensual and not coerced.
Nonetheless, he said that there was difficulty in determining the nature of the relationship "at a level of certainty necessary for a criminal trial.
A occasionally contradicted herself and some of her statements were contradicted by other witnesses." Among these other witnesses, said Mazuz, were even sources close to A, who at times contradicted her testimony directly.
The attorney general emphasized that as early as investigations in January 2007, there were doubts as to A's version of events "that reduced the scope of the original indictment against the president regarding her."
