Former soccer player Haim Sirotkin was sentenced on Tuesday to one year in prison after being convicted of reckless and negligent conduct involving a vehicle that injured five protesters during an anti-government demonstration in Tel Aviv.
The Tel Aviv Magistrate’s Court also suspended his driver’s license for four years and ordered him to pay NIS 20,000 in compensation to one victim and NIS 4,000 each to four additional victims.
The incident occurred on the evening of April 6, 2024. Sirotkin was driving with his wife and another couple on their way to a party when they reached the Namir Road-Begin Road-Shaul Hamelech Boulevard intersection in Tel Aviv, where protesters were crossing the road.
Sirotkin stopped his vehicle, and he and his wife exchanged words with demonstrators who passed near the car. According to the court, after a police officer who had offered to help guide him through the intersection stepped away, Sirotkin accelerated into the intersection and struck five protesters.
One victim, a woman in her 60s, suffered a head injury and four broken ribs. The court noted that Sirotkin continued driving for more than 10 seconds before bringing the vehicle to a stop.
Sirotkin was convicted of reckless, negligent conduct involving vehicle
The court convicted him of reckless and negligent conduct involving a vehicle, finding that while he did not intend to hit the protesters, he knowingly accelerated while numerous people were crossing in front of his car and disregarded the risk that he could strike them.
In its sentencing decision, the court said three aggravating factors justified a prison sentence.
First, the judges said the case involved more than ordinary negligence because Sirotkin consciously pressed the accelerator despite the presence of pedestrians directly ahead of him. The police officer who had been assisting him was no longer directing traffic and was instead speaking with Sirotkin’s wife, who was arguing with protesters.
Second, the court cited the number of victims and the seriousness of the injuries suffered by one of them.
Third, the court pointed to a connection between Sirotkin’s impatience and the earlier confrontation between the vehicle’s occupants and protesters. According to the ruling, his decision not to wait for demonstrators to finish crossing reflected a lack of tolerance that contributed to the dangerous situation.
The court further stated that the incident affected not only the victims but also others who witnessed it, creating concerns about the ability to express political views freely during public demonstrations.
In concluding the sentencing, the judge expressed hope that the case would serve as a public lesson in patience and tolerance. The ruling stated that Sirotkin should have remained in his vehicle and waited for the road to clear rather than driving forward while protesters were still crossing.
The judge emphasized that the prosecution never argued that Sirotkin intentionally drove into the demonstrators. Instead, prosecutors maintained that he acted recklessly, showing indifference to the consequences of his actions. They attributed to him a mental state more serious than negligence but short of intent.
Sirotkin deliberately hit gas when protesters were on road
The defense, meanwhile, did not maintain at trial Sirotkin’s original claim that a mechanical malfunction had prevented him from controlling the vehicle. As a result, the court concluded that the manner in which the car was driven stemmed directly from Sirotkin’s operation of it.
The judges said the evidence did not allow them to determine with certainty why Sirotkin drove as he did. The ruling noted that several factors may have played a role, including frustration over the delay, anger at remarks made by a protester, negative feelings toward the demonstrators, pressure created by his wife’s shouting, disregard for the possibility of injuring people, and alcohol consumption.
However, the court stressed that the issue of alcohol was not sufficiently investigated to support firm conclusions and was not included in the indictment. The ruling added that some of Sirotkin’s actions may also have resulted from an unintentional failure to operate the vehicle properly amid the combination of factors present at the scene.