A legal case heard in the Central District Court of Lod clarifies the scope of the Administrative Traffic Offenses Law, which entered into force on February 8, 2026. The case involves a driver convicted of failing to keep both hands on the steering wheel, an offense committed in April 2024. As part of a plea agreement signed in April 2025, it was agreed that the driver would pay a fine of 1,200 NIS. Following the enactment of the new law, which sets a fine of only 100 NIS for this offense, the driver petitioned the courts to update his sentence and reduce the fine pursuant to Section 5(b) of the Penal Law, which mandates the application of a lighter penalty in the event of legislative changes. After his request was denied by the Traffic Court, the driver appealed to the District Court.
In proceedings before Judge Ahikam Stoler, the driver argued that the current legal interpretation creates inequality among offenders for the same violation, based on the timing of the sentencing. Conversely, the State argued that the new law does not provide grounds to reopen closed plea agreements and that Section 5(b) should not be applied in a manner that nullifies agreed-upon punishments reached through procedural settlements. Judge Stoler accepted some of the driver's principled arguments, ruling that Section 5(b) might apply to instances of administrative penalty changes and that there is no principled procedural impediment to filing a request after sentencing. However, the judge determined that Section 48(a) of the new law acts as an explicit transitional provision, establishing that the law does not apply to offenses committed before February 2026. Consequently, the previous law, including its penalty standards, continues to apply to earlier offenses.
Furthermore, the court noted that the driver was convicted under a plea agreement that included an amendment to the original indictment; therefore, a retroactive intervention regarding the fine alone would constitute an infringement on the overall agreement reached between the parties. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the 1,200 NIS fine remained in effect. This ruling underscores the importance of transitional provisions in new legislation and prevents a situation where convicted individuals in closed cases seek to reduce fines due to policy changes enacted after the commission of an offense.