Building A Jewish Democracy

IPC News

Israel Policy Center Wins Big in Jerusalem District Court (February 13, 2008)

(February 13, 2008)  In a precedent-setting decision, Judge Moussia Arad of Jerusalem District Court ordered the State Prosecution to hand over to IPC all its files regarding decisions to indict (or not indict) people for the offenses of “insulting a civil servant” or “insulting a judge.” The court’s decision covers the years 2001 to 2007 and will enable IPC to evaluate whether the State Prosecution exhibited political bias in deciding whom to indict and whom to let off. 

The Jerusalem District Court decision is already making waves in Israel’s legal community.  Defense attorneys in criminal trials around the country are requesting information regarding the State Prosecution’s past policy regarding indictments for the offenses with which their clients are charged.  The City of Jerusalem’s legal department circulated the decision to all its attorneys with instructions to consider how the decision can be used in the City’s interests. 

Background:  The Elizur Segal Case 

In 2004 Rabbi Elizur Segal published an article on the internet critical of the then-Chief Rabbi of the IDF, Yisrael Weiss.  In response the State Prosecution indicted Segal for “insulting a civil servant.”  IPC is participating in Segal’s defense (see related article), because of the fundamental civil rights issue involved:  In a free country, legal authorities cannot stifle public debate by indicting people who criticize government policies or the civil servants who implement them. 

In his defense brief, filed by IPC’s counsel Attorney Itzhak Bam, Segal argued that he was being discriminated against because of his political views.  People far more prominent than Segal have said or written harsh things about civil servants without being molested by the State Prosecution.  For example, Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, spiritual head of the Shas party, termed Israeli judges “vermin-eaters,” and worse, in a public lecture. Dana Olmert, the daughter of Prime Minister Olmert, called former Chief of Staff Dan Halutz a “murderer” in a public demonstration.  Neither of these two prominent maledictors has been charged.  

Needed:  Statistical Proof 

In a case similar to Segal’s, Nadia Matar, charged for “insulting” the head of the Disengagement Authority, Yonatan Bassie, offered the same defense:  Right-wing nobodies get indicted, while prominent people go free.  Matar’s defense was rejected by a judicial panel of Jerusalem District Court (involving other judges), who ruled that Matar had not proven statistically that she was the victim of discrimination.   

Can the State Prosecution Have its Cake and Eat it Too? 

Of course, the only way to prove discrimination would be to examine all the State Prosecution’s decisions to indict or not indict people suspected of the offense of “insulting a civil servant.”  Upon reading the Matar ruling, IPC demanded under Israel’s Freedom of Information Act that the State Prosecution make available all its decisions regarding this offense going back to 2001.  Citing a technicality, the Prosecution refused.   

IPC took the State Prosecution to court.  In his brief, Attorney Bam argued on behalf of IPC that the State cannot have its cake and eat it too:  Both demand statistical proof that a defendant is the victim of discrimination, and deny that defendant the information needed to clear his name in court.  In her decision, Judge Arad cited IPC’s brief almost verbatim. 

Of course, should IPC be able to demonstrate that the State Prosecution habitually uses the weapon of criminal indictment in a politically biased way, the implications for Israel’s criminal justice system will go far beyond the defense of Elizur Segal and Nadia Matar. 

Update:  State Prosecution Appeals Segal Verdict to Supreme Court.  See related article.

Judge Moussia Arad, President of Jerusalem District Court.

Back to News Main Page