Retired Judge, Prof. Encourage Modric, Addressed this morning (Thursday) in a conversation with Nissim Mashaal and Guy Peleg On 103FM for the decision of the Jerusalem District Court regarding the Spokesman’s approvals to open investigations against the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. “I am not convinced that this could lead to the cancellation of the investigation, and at the same time it is an improper move,” Modrick said.
We have been dealing in recent days with the question of whether the approval given by the Attorney General to the police to interrogate the Prime Minister with a warning can only be given orally or in writing. Do you see a scenario that could have a significant impact?
“The requirement for the prior approval of the Attorney General is a requirement of the Basic Law of the Government. Without approval, ostensibly, it is not possible to open an investigation against an incumbent prime minister. The law does not talk about written or oral approval. The requirement for writing is reasonable, even if not written. But I saw, because in the end you need proof that there was a permit. Imagine a policeman standing in the doorway of your house and saying, ‘I’ll arrest you.’ I ask, ‘By what?’, And he says to me, ‘By arrest warrant,’ I say, ‘ “Please show me,” and he replies, “I have no order.” And then a judge will call and say, “Yes, I approved.” So there is a difficulty with that, let’s say I saw it. “
But if the attorney general sits down with the investigative team and tells them, ‘I give you permission to go investigate Netanyahu,’ is that not satisfactory?
“I think that can be enough. Because the law does not say that writing is such a constitutive requirement.”
Could this materially harm the continuation of the legal proceedings against the Prime Minister?
“I am not convinced that this could lead to the cancellation of the investigation, even though it is a course that if there was no instruction to open an investigation – it is an illegal move. Did this illegality materially affect the ability of the detainee or suspect or defendant to defend? It does not seem to me that there is any disturbance here in his ability to defend himself, and at the same time, it is an improper move. So many examples he brings in. So as in boxing, one blow may not cause a knockout, but here and there a blow, and eventually things accumulate, perhaps to show what he is claiming – if not persecution, at least some negligence in the way it was conducted The investigation. “
But the question is, is this a blow to the public-media aspect, or is there a legal significance here that could lead to acquittal one day?
“There are certainly public consequences. Legal consequences – it depends on the cumulative quality of the defects he will find. Such a defect, one and only, I doubt very much whether it can lead to the dismissal of the indictment. Accumulation? Depends on its quality, its extent, Of protection from justice. “
We do know that the panel of judges has already ordered the prosecution to amend the indictment. This means that in the preliminary stages of this sentence, we are already seeing several and several shortcomings at least.
“Truth. She is the giver. We see defects, and defect after defect, and in the end the accumulation of defects may be significant or very significant. At the moment it does not seem so. The fact that the indictment was not quashed, sought to correct that it is an everyday act. But “A correction at such a level, and when the best lawyers of the State Attorney’s Office work on the case, it really raises questions.”