Supreme Court denies appeal hearing for Katsav

Justice Esther Hayut says former president's defense team had "left no stone unturned" in search for rape case appeal.

May 13, 2012 17:22
2 minute read.
Moshe Katsav walking into court in October

Moshe Katsav walking into court 311. (photo credit: Marc Israel Sellem/The Jerusalem Post))


Dear Reader,
As you can imagine, more people are reading The Jerusalem Post than ever before. Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications, like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations, we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news and analyses from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.

As one of our loyal readers, we ask you to be our partner.

For $5 a month you will receive access to the following:

  • A user experience almost completely free of ads
  • Access to our Premium Section
  • Content from the award-winning Jerusalem Report and our monthly magazine to learn Hebrew - Ivrit
  • A brand new ePaper featuring the daily newspaper as it appears in print in Israel

Help us grow and continue telling Israel’s story to the world.

Thank you,

Ronit Hasin-Hochman, CEO, Jerusalem Post Group
Yaakov Katz, Editor-in-Chief

UPGRADE YOUR JPOST EXPERIENCE FOR 5$ PER MONTH Show me later Don't show it again

The Supreme Court ruled on Sunday that former president Moshe Katsav will not be allowed a further appeal hearing in his rape trial.

The former president is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence after being unanimously convicted in the Tel Aviv District Court in 2010 of two counts of rape, two counts of sexual harassment, an indecent act using force and obstruction of justice.

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.

Supreme Court Justice Esther Hayut wrote in her ruling that Katsav’s defense team had “left no stone unturned” in their request for an additional appeal hearing, but said the arguments raised did not justify further discussion on the court’s ruling.

In November 2011, after the Supreme Court rejected Katsav’s appeal against his conviction and sentence, his defense team petitioned the court for extra time to file a request for a further appeal hearing.

The former president’s attorneys said grounds for further discussion included legal difficulties with the conviction, including the standard of evidence in a testimony-based conviction in which the decisive factor had been something other than physical evidence or witness corroboration.

Katsav’s defense team also argued that the main complainant in the case, “Aleph” from the Tourism Ministry, had given fallacious testimony, and that the former president had suffered a “trial by media.”

In February, Katsav’s lawyers also asked to file two pieces of additional evidence – a video recording and a photograph, both taken at a Ramat Gan event for Persian Jews – that they said proved the former president was telling the truth regarding his whereabouts at the time Aleph claims he raped her for the first time.

However, in rejecting Katsav’s petition for an additional hearing, Hayut said that the court only takes such steps in “rare and unusual cases,” in order to avoid creating additional legal proceedings where the law did not permit it.

The fact that a panel of justices had already ruled unanimously to uphold the former president’s conviction, Hayut said, “supports the rejection of this petition.”

Regarding the issue of the testimony-based conviction, Hayut said that there had been nothing novel in the court’s ruling on the Katsav case.

Hayut said that Katsav had not brought any new claims when he alleged in his petition that the main complainant in the case, Aleph from the Tourism Ministry, had given fallacious testimony. The former president’s arguments, Hayut said, were in fact regarding the complainant’s credibility, which the district court had already determined.

The same was true of Katsav’s claims regarding his alibi at the time of the first rape, Hayut said.

Concerning Katsav’s arguments that he had suffered a “trial by media,” Hayut said that a “hostile public atmosphere” towards the defendant, and even a “judgement” made by the media while his trial is ongoing does not mean that a fair trial was not possible.

The trial, Hayut said, was conducted and ruled on by a panel of professional judges.

Regarding the two pieces of additional evidence proposed by Katsav’s defense team, Hayut said such a request would anyway be suitable only where the defense proposed a retrial, and could not be brought into any additional appeal hearing.

Katsav is serving his prison sentence in the Torah Division of the Ma’asiyahu Prison in Ramle.

Related Content

August 31, 2014
Rioting resumes throughout east Jerusalem Saturday night