High Court injunction to force AG to explain Katsav plea deal
Chief justice also asked why Katsav was not charged with consensual sexual relations through abuse of power.
By Arnon Ben-YairOpponents of the plea bargain signed by former president Moshe Katsav achieved a victory on Wednesday when five judges from the High Court of Justice issued an injunction that will require Attorney General Menachem Mazuz to testify before the High Court on why he does not intend to annul the plea bargain reached with Katsav.
The injunction was issued in response to several High Court reservations with the plea agreement. They asked for the attorney general to explain why complainants were not given a hearing, and why Katsav's time in office was not deducted from the statute of limitations, which caused evidence from a number of complainants to be excluded.
Petitioners argued that as the statute of limitations for sexual offenses was largely covered by Katsav's term in office, it should have been counted back in its full length starting from the time Katsav was elected president in 2000 - and not his indictment this year. This would have allowed for the statute of limitations to include earlier complaints the state prosecution disqualified.
According to Israeli law, the attorney general will have to present his explanations to the High Court within 21 days.
Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch also questioned the prosecution's decision not to charge Katsav with consensual sexual relations through abuse of power, saying the very existence of a sexual relationship between Katsav and A., at the time an employee in his official residence, is evidence of such.
During a court hearing on petitions against the Katsav plea deal, Beinisch pointed to the significant gap between Katsav and A. in terms of seniority, position, and age.
Consensual sexual relations through the abuse of power is a criminal violation and is punishable by up to three years in prison.
According to a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, the charge applies to cases in which the man has direct or indirect authority over the woman. Among other factors, significant gaps in age and seniority can be used to determine that the man abused his power. The ruling determines that even if the woman was the one to initiate the sexual relationship, a court can rule that the man abused his power.
"Why, on the face of it, did you give up on [charging Katsav with] consensual relations through abuse of power?" Beinisch asked Deputy Special Prosecutor Shai Nitzan. "We assume there was an affair. What difference does it make?"
Nitzan responded by saying that the prosecution made the decision based on the fact that not every affair constitutes a crime, adding that the objective evidence - as opposed to Katsav and A.'s respective versions of events - caused the prosecution to be concerned that the court would not convict Katsav of the charge.
A. petitioned the High Court of Justice after Attorney General Menachem Mazuz removed all charges related to her complaints against the former president in the revised indictment, filed in accordance with the plea agreement reached with Katsav. In a move that sparked bitter controversy, Mazuz also removed all rape charges.
Nitzan described the relationship between A. and Katsav as passionate, saying that A. was obsessive and jealous. In addition, Nitzan said the prosecution was convinced that there were intimate relations between Katsav and A., but were divided over the ability to prove full sexual relations. While A. claimed there were full sexual relations, Katsav flatly denied it, and there was no corroborating evidence.
According to Israeli law, full sexual relations are a necessary condition for the charge of consensual sexual relations through abuse of power.
Beinisch responded to Nitzan's argument by saying that the matter was one which should be decided by a court.
Nitzan: Evidence made it difficult to charge Katsav with rapeNitzan said former Tourism Ministry employee A., whom Katsav was originally accused of raping, did not mention rape in her first statement to police, and only did so when giving a second statement. Nitzan added that her testimony often suggested that Katsav was seeking her consent, for instance when she said: "When the president asked me to unbutton my blouse."
The prosecutor added that there was evidence that made it difficult to charge the former president with rape - the only charge for which the statute of limitations had not yet run out, as A.'s complaints dated to 1998. For instance, A. sent Katsav a Rosh Hashana card full of expressions of love in September 1998, after he allegedly raped her.
"Its true that it makes it difficult, but that is something for the court to decide," said the chief justice in response.
When asked by Beinisch if the prosecution felt that A. was trying to frame Katsav, Nitzan responded: "No, but that isn't the question. You are being asked to nullify the plea agreement, and my argument is, that today trying someone for rape is difficult."
Nitzan also mentioned that fact that there were witnesses who said A. would get ready prior to meeting Katsav, including by putting on lipstick, as well as witnesses who said she threatened revenge once she was fired from the ministry.
The prosecutor added that A. from the Tourism Ministry approached an attorney during the period in which she said Katsav raped her, describing sexual harassment and abuse of power, but not rape.
"There was also a problem regarding the issue of force," added Nitzan. "The force was the slightest of the slight. She sat on the bed, and he knocked her over."
|
Former president Moshe Katsav. (BauBau Archives) |
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Katzav should go to jail, for the abuse of his authoritiy, and for the sexual abuse of his employees. But the law should also consider providing an additional punishment for the cruelty that Katzav (and Clinton) inflicted on their own wives and children, as a result of the public airing of their sexual 'exploits'- with all the resulting public humiliation. It is all very noble for the wives and families to be supportive - but what incalculable psychological damage is done, especially to the children & grandchildren?
Well, Tan, the thing that really riles me about Clickfool is that he has it in for the toads, and doesn't miss an opportunity to denigrate them......
Ya, SMS, you do have a point there. However, Clinton owned up to everything and expressed genuine remorse. Surely that is a case for extenuating circumstances, totally unlike Katsav.
MICHAEL COHEN- Beinish (an extremely political and contentious person)is OBVIOUSLY very prejudiced, VERY unbecoming to a supposedly impartial jurist, and OBVIOUSLY (again) has her own "axe to grind". She keeps saying "That's for the courts to decide" but in fact it is NOT. It's for the EVIDENCE to be there to allow the court to decide. The court can only decide on factual evidence, and ALL the indications are "he said-she said". The actual EVIDENCE from A's actions and from her friends,shows that A had an obsession with Katsav, which HE SAYS wasn't returned, and further evidence shows that not only was she revengeful, but was also conducting a torrid affair with Katsav's driver, which NO ONE seems to take into account. To conclude this mess A seems to be very mentally disturbed, a typical "STALKER".
"Anyway, the common underpining of a just legal system in any civilised country - including Israel - is that a person is innocent until proven guilty (unlike the other "system" where it is OK that rape victims be murdered in the name of family honour instead of receiving justice)." Except that Katsav has struck a plea bargain admitting to the very crimes that the Chief Justice says would have earned him a 1-3 year jail sentence. And the very fact that Katsav has agreed to any plea bargain at all tells you that he is guilty of sex crimes. Had he been innocent he would have fought to his last breath to defend his reputation and the office of state he occupied.
To allow a guilty predator to go free is to victimize society as whole.
How desperate for an excuse can you be? When a school teacher has non-consentual sex with a student - we automatically UNDERSTAND that emotional force was a big factor. And we punish this blatant violation of power as severly as possible. Same as- Psycologists with patients, parents with children and bosses with employees. With the exception of "stranger-rape" most victims are violated multiple times, until they are so completely broken that they let the story out. It's not about what someone would do to keep their job. It IS about someone with a job who didn't know how to deal with this, someone threatened, vulnerable, frightened and in a position she saw no way out of.
Psychology students and police profilers in the criminal units will probably have a field day analysing this cf's post. Maybe it explains a little why he writes what he does all the time. Anyway, the common underpining of a just legal system in any civilised country - including Israel - is that a person is innocent until proven guilty (unlike the other "system" where it is OK that rape victims be murdered in the name of family honour instead of receiving justice). And certainly, it is difficult to expect a person who is possessed by conspiracy theories and wild unproven conjunctures to produce a lucid argument or reasonable discussion.
Could the protagonist and the alleged victim now be obligated to re-enact the deed for judicial purposes?
Katsav should stand trial. Olmert should stand trial for his appartment purchases. Halutz should be swapped for any one of our kidnapped soldiers with Peretz being thrown into the bargain for free. The former chief of the tax authority should also stand trial.This would be an excellent start.Once they have been sentenced the rest of the corrupt politicians and leaders should parade through the court system.We need a return to Zionist values.
Why in the world are five high court justices wasting their 'precious' time on this matter? This should be looked at by a lower court. Beinish's remarks taint the entire case if it is prosecuted because of her obvious bias. She is a legal lightweight, an uber-feminist and not credible. She has little respect by her peers. She is a disgrace to the Israeli court system and ought to resign.
What if the court requests re-enactment of the crime/s before it can make a decision....? This is common practice..... Would the various A's have stand-ins, or would they be obliged to act it out themselves.....? (Like everybody else, I can't wait for the serial...).
Consensual sexual relations through the abuse of power is a criminal violation and is punishable by up to three years in prison (Beinish).
"The Israel PA seems to think he can`t prove it - who are you to state otherwise? Were you there" Read the story again, Shlomo. The Chief Justice is saying that whatever doubts the AG might have had about making rape charges stick, the charge of consensual sexual relations through abuse of power would have easy to prove, and would have led to jail time for the evil old toad, Katsav.
Clickfool - why do you keep repeating entire paragraphs from the story without adding any comment except the subject? Do you think all Haaretz readers can't read or are (click)fools? btw - the prison sentence should be decided in a court of law not ny a court of public opinion and only after criminal intent has been proven. The Israel PA seems to think he can't prove it - who are you to state otherwise? Were you there?
Your post brings back memories of the former President Clinton. The United States, and, in particular, Washington, D. C., needs such a law providing for three years incarceration for consensual sex based on political power. We have a problem in the United States. Senator Hillary Clinton is not going to consent to such legislation, especially when she needs her husband to help her next year in the Presidential campaign.
"Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch questioned the prosecution's decision not to charge former president Moshe Katsav with consensual sexual relations through abuse of power, saying the very existence of a sexual relationship between Katsav and A., at the time an employee in his official residence, is evidence of such. During a court hearing on petitions against the Katsav plea bargain, Beinisch pointed to the significant gap between Katsav and A. in terms of seniority, position, and age. Consensual sexual relations through the abuse of power is a criminal violation and is punishable by up to three years in prison."
To the right of this Haaretz story about Katsav's rape of a female staffer I see: "Erectile Dysfunction News Top 5 Male Enhancement Products Compared. We Found A Clear Winner! NaturalCureGuide.com " Immediately below this I see: "sexual preformance male factor prostate formula herbal-nutrition.net/jjandz"
I am afraid that Beinish, with all due respect which she as a person does not deserve but her position does, is bringing closer a possibility, hopefully not a probability, of civil strife as a minimum, and a dictatorship as a maximum. Her of cuuf pronouncements, where logic is missing -and it is very surprising for a lawyer- jeopardise any consensus left among the peoples of Israel and push their tolerance to extreme level, which leaves no room for reflexion as to the respect due to the High Court Of Justice. Sad and a very freightning prespectives.
You missed the point. If she consented under pressure of loosing her job, it is her business and not yours. And this pressure is punishable by law.
You are very lucky not to worry about your job. Not everyone is that lucky, and it is way more complicated than you suggest in your email. If I remember correctly, I read that he threatened that if she didn't consent he'd make sure she couldn't get a job anywhere.
If according to her own account she was raped 'three or four' times over several years, what court would not suspect that she consented? If someone rapes you totally against your will, you don't keep going back until the third or fourth time. How desperate for a job can you be?
Mazuz himself, has been confessed coutless times that he detests Katzav, and is convinced Katzav did have an affair with A. Why, if he is cinvinced, on the basis of the evidence he has seen until now - why on earth is he unsure he would not obtain a conviction in court? And why, if he is so convinced, then why does he need a cast-iron guarantee before he goes to Court? Perhaps Mazuz himself gave the answer when he stated he also fears for the office of the Presidency?? That is NONE of Mazuz's business, and he could hardly do more harm to the Presidency,than Katzav and his smart-ass lawyers have already done. It seems that Dorit Beinisch now remains the only one who can save us all from this shame.
The way things are going with all this parlour talk, Katsav will soon be sueing the women for abusing him.....