Supreme Court Accepts Garban's Appeal: Murder Conviction Stands, Sentence to Be Redetermined

Following the appeal, filed through Adv. Avigdor Feldman, the conviction was replaced with the basic offense of murder, and the case was remanded to the District Court for resentencing.

The Supreme Court today (Thursday) partially accepted the appeal of Suheil Garban, who was convicted in the Haifa District Court of murder with indifference under aggravating circumstances and arson, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Justices David Mintz, Gila Canfy-Steinitz, and Ruth Ronen upheld the finding that Garban committed murder, but ruled that he should not be convicted of murder under aggravating circumstances due to "special cruelty."

The meaning of the decision is the reopening of the sentencing question: while the previous conviction mandated life imprisonment, the conviction for the basic murder offense leaves the court with sentencing discretion, up to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court did not set an alternative sentence, and the hearing will return to the District Court to hear sentencing arguments and hand down a new sentence.

The arson following the dispute and the controversy over the seconds leading up to it

The incident took place on February 12, 2021, following a dispute that developed earlier that day between Garban's family and the deceased's family. Hilmi Garban, born in 1944, was sitting in his vehicle outside his home when it was set on fire. He suffered severe burns and died four days later.

The identity of the arsonist was not in dispute. The central question was whether Garban noticed the deceased before the arson, and what his attitude was toward the possibility that his actions would cause his death.

Garban claimed that he arrived at the scene to set fire to a vehicle as revenge, and not to harm a person. According to him, due to the darkness and the tinted car windows, he did not notice the deceased. The defense presented a possibility that the car door was opened at the moment the Molotov cocktail was thrown, without Garban having time to notice the person sitting inside.

Already in the District Court, the judges were divided: the majority opinion convicted of murder with indifference under aggravating circumstances, while the minority judge believed he should be convicted of reckless manslaughter.

The arguments of the defense and the state on appeal

In the appeal, through Adv. Avigdor Feldman, Garban sought to challenge the finding that he saw the deceased before the arson. It was also argued that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the scenario upon which the conviction was based: arriving to commit vehicle arson, noticing the deceased at the last moment, and continuing the act with indifference to his life.

The state asked to uphold the conviction. In its view, the evidence shows that Garban noticed the deceased before throwing the Molotov cocktail. In the framework of the appeal, the state no longer insisted on the possibility that the arson was carried out by pouring gasoline directly onto the deceased and setting him on fire, and the discussion was based on the throwing of a Molotov cocktail.

The Supreme Court rejected the arguments against the conviction for murder with indifference. The claim of prejudice to the ability to mount a defense was also rejected, among other reasons because the question of Garban's knowledge of the deceased's presence in the vehicle was at the heart of the defense's line from the outset.

Why was the aggravating circumstance overturned?

The appeal was accepted on the question of "special cruelty." The judges emphasized the gravity of the act and the severe suffering of the deceased, but distinguished between the cruelty of the murder and the legal conditions required for a conviction of murder under aggravating circumstances.

Justice Mintz ruled that alongside the victim's suffering, the nature of the offender's actions must also be examined. In this case, Garban approached the vehicle, threw a Molotov cocktail, and fled. The act of murder lasted mere seconds, and under the established circumstances, that special cruelty justifying classifying the offense as more severe did not exist.

Justice Canfy-Steinitz emphasized that it must be examined whether in the manner of committing the murder there was an additional component that caused the victim excess suffering beyond the suffering entailed in causing his death. She noted that this is the first time the Supreme Court has addressed the alternative of "special cruelty" in relation to a killing committed with indifference.

Justice Ronen joined the result, in her words "not without hesitation." She clarified that setting a person on fire while alive is a cruel act, but it does not always and necessarily establish the legal circumstance of special cruelty.

The conviction stands, the sentencing question reopened

The ruling grants the defense a significant achievement in the classification of the offense and in the possibility to argue for a sentence other than life imprisonment. Nevertheless, Garban remains convicted of murder, and there is no determination in the decision that his sentence will necessarily be reduced. The sentencing decision will be made in the District Court after hearing the parties' arguments anew.