High Court overturns 'texting judge' expulsion from judiciary

The July panel had decided that despite a strong prior judicial record, her offense was so damaging to judicial credibility that it warranted complete removal from the bench.

By YONAH JEREMY BOB
Updated: DECEMBER 28, 2018 06:12
Tel Aviv Magistrate’s Court Judge Ronit Pozansky-Katz has been effectively suspended (photo credit: AVSHALOM SASSONI/MAARIV)
Tel Aviv Magistrate’s Court Judge Ronit Pozansky-Katz has been effectively suspended
(photo credit: AVSHALOM SASSONI/MAARIV)
The High Court of Justice has reversed a lower judicial panel’s July order to expel “texting judge” Ronit Poznanski-Katz from the judiciary, instead leaving with her with an extended suspension and pay cut.
The July special judicial disciplinary panel decision had expelled her for improper texting with a government lawyer regarding pretrial hearings for Case 4000, known as the “Bezeq/Walla Affair.”
In mid-April as part of a plea bargain, the same panel convicted Poznanski-Katz for conduct unbecoming of a judge.
But the 2-1 vote on Thursday reinstated her, while maintaining an ongoing suspension until March, heavily reducing her pay, and restricting her from hearing criminal cases for two years.
The July panel had decided that despite a strong prior judicial record, her offense was so damaging to judicial credibility that it warranted complete removal from the bench.
But the High Court decided that expulsion was too severe a penalty for what was ultimately a violation of procedure in which the judge and the prosecutor should not have communicated outside of court, but had caused no substantive damage.
Earlier, in February, the judge stepped down from the case after she was caught exchanging text messages with Israel Securities Authority attorney Eran Shaham-Shavit about detention proceedings.
Photographs of their texting appeared to show them planning how many days of detention various suspects in Case 4000 would get.
Coordination, in which defense lawyers get to weigh in on arguments by the state outside of the public process, can be grounds for overturning an extended detention order.