Bar Association Files Request to Join Appeal on Definition of Judicial Orders as an Intelligence Hole
Today, the Bar Association submitted a request to the Supreme Court to join as a friend of the court in the appeal filed by the lawyers in case 3000 regarding the definition of judicial orders as an intelligence hole. The Supreme Court will rule on whether court orders intended to be carried out by an intelligence authority, such as a warrant for secret storage, are considered intelligence material.
The focus of the appeal is not on the products resulting from the order, but rather on the order itself signed by the court. These warrants were discovered during an investigation conducted by defense attorneys of Bar Yosef, along with Miki Ganor’s defense attorneys, Ravit Tzemach and Amit Nir, who have also joined the appeal submitted to the Supreme Court.
The question at hand arises from case 3000, in which the District Court in Tel Aviv determined that judicial orders are classified as intelligence material. In response, the lawyers of Avriel Bar Yosef, the defendant in case 3000, namely Jacques Chen, Yanon Sartal, Orna Pinto Gefson, and Nir Lazar, filed an appeal to the Supreme Court opposing this determination. The defense is requesting that the court determine that the warrants themselves are not considered intelligence material and must be handed over to the defense.
The Bar Association’s position in this matter is based on the principle of publicness of hearing. They argue that court proceedings conducted in an ex parte capacity, including judicial orders issued during this phase, should be subject to transparency. The Association states, “The public nature of the hearing allows the spotlight to be thrown on the legal process, opening it up to criticism and increasing public trust.”
According to the Bar Association, a judicial order does not reflect the investigative action of the Intelligence Authority, but rather examines the grounds and justification for approving the action. Therefore, it is not considered investigative action, but a judicial procedure in its own right.
The association believes that after an indictment has been filed, full disclosure should be the rule regarding requests and discussions heard during the investigation phase, particularly in relation to judicial orders issued. They argue that the prosecution should determine the need for confidentiality certificates on these orders, balancing the potential harm to fundamental rights against the need for transparency and exposure to scrutiny.
The Bar Association’s position emphasizes the importance of public trust in the judicial process and the exercise of freedom of expression. They stress that the public nature of the hearing is essential for the integrity of the democratic regime and allows for criticism and public oversight. They advocate for greater transparency and disclosure in relation to judicial orders.
The Supreme Court will now consider the request from the Bar Association to join the appeal as a friend of the court, further contributing to the ongoing discussion on the definition of judicial orders as intelligence material.