Criminal Investigation and Legal Defense Mechanisms: Expert Analysis

The Rishon LeZion Magistrate’s Court rejected the police’s request to extend restrictive conditions on Prime Minister’s advisor Yonatan Urich, his Chief of Staff Tzachi Braverman, and spokesperson Omer Mansour. The case involves the leak of classified documents to German publication Bild, in which Eli Feldstein is also implicated. Additional allegations have emerged regarding obstruction of the investigation and unlawful obtaining of information about the investigation’s progress.

We are witnessing a situation where the Magistrate’s Court releases defendants from restrictions, and then the District Court reinstates them. How long can this process continue?

In principle, until an indictment is filed and the trial begins. This is a normal procedural situation. Before trial, jurisdiction belongs to the Magistrate’s Court for all pre-trial procedures. Decisions of the Magistrate’s Court can be appealed to the District Court. Decisions of the District Court can, with appropriate permission, be appealed to the Supreme Court. The District Court or Supreme Court may return the case to the Magistrate’s Court. There are no formal limitations on the number of such appeals.

Information has emerged about a possible interrogation of the Prime Minister as a witness. Does this mean the investigation is approaching him directly?

First, this is not certain. During the Magistrate’s Court hearing, the judge inquired whether the Prime Minister would be questioned as a witness, since the police demanded restrictions on his access, although he was not listed as a witness in the case. The police did not provide a definitive answer.

It is important to understand: the mere fact of giving witness testimony does not make someone a suspect. The majority of people questioned in investigations are witnesses, and subsequently no procedural actions are taken against them. However, if during witness testimony it becomes apparent that the person may have committed an offense, this can lead to a change in procedural status to suspect. But we are far from such a situation.

The investigation has been ongoing for quite some time, yet the facts are generally undisputed. Why is the case being prolonged?

Not entirely accurate that the facts are undisputed. Recently, Erix and Levi were interrogated – the investigation seeks to establish additional circumstances. This was quite an unexpected development. The investigation is determining how the chain of information acquisition occurred, whether appropriate permissions were granted along the way. There are disputes not only regarding interpretation of events, but also regarding the facts themselves.

Furthermore, a spin-off investigation has branched from the main case, related to the former Chief of Staff and attempted obstruction of the investigation.

What does this spin-off entail?

This is an additional investigation that split from the main case but remains connected to it. New facts and allegations have emerged, particularly regarding obstruction of the investigation, unlawful obtaining of information about the investigation itself: who is conducting it, what circumstances are being examined, what could help potential suspects obstruct this investigation.

According to one defendant’s statement, the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff claimed he could “extinguish” the investigation. Is this legally possible?

No, this is impossible. Several legal issues arise here. First: how did he know about the investigation? According to the defendant, he learned about it before any official actions. Second: the mere fact of warning is already interference in the investigation. Third: the statement “I can stop it” implies pressure on someone – on the police, using political connections. In this situation, this constitutes a criminal offense. This is precisely what is being investigated.

The Magistrate’s Court judge expressed skepticism regarding these claims, considering them unsubstantiated, and imposed minimal restrictions.

Can we expect the District Court to overturn this decision?

Quite possibly. We observe that the Magistrate’s Court judge is more critical of police actions than the District Court. A critical attitude toward the police from a judge is a positive element. The judge protects the rights of suspects, who are innocent until proven otherwise.

On the other hand, the District Court possesses its own perspective. Judges analyze the Magistrate’s Court’s assessment and conduct additional analysis. Parties in the appeal can point to the judge’s errors, unaddressed questions, and insufficiently substantiated conclusions. This is the purpose of the appellate system. Sometimes a third appeal to the Supreme Court follows, but this is relatively rare.

An important procedural distinction to remember: in civil court, interim decisions cannot be appealed without special grounds, whereas in criminal proceedings this is possible. Legislation seeks to provide additional protection for the freedom and rights of innocent individuals by providing for review by more than one court.