High Court backs off forcing A-G probe illegal leaks about PM case

Mandelblit has condemned the leaks, but said a probe would make matters worse.

By YONAH JEREMY BOB
PRIME MINISTER Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at his office in Jerusalem on September 13. (photo credit: YOAV DUDKEVITCH/REUTERS)
PRIME MINISTER Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at his office in Jerusalem on September 13.
(photo credit: YOAV DUDKEVITCH/REUTERS)
The High Court of Justice on Thursday upheld Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit’s decision not to probe leaks of materials to the media regarding the cases against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The 3-0 decision by Supreme Court President Esther Hayut and Justices Noam Sohlberg and George Kara was actually a surprise after Hayut gave Mandelblit’s office a bruising rebuke in mid-September.
At the hearing in mid-September, Hayut pressed hard for Mandelblit to probe the leaks.
It had appeared clear that Hayut and her fellow justices were ready to endorse a petition by Case 4000 defendants Shaul and Iris Elovitch to compel Mandelblit to order a probe.
“If this is a recurring phenomenon, hasn’t the moment arrived to take action and review it?” asked Hayut.
According to the defendants in the alleged Netanyahu corruption cases, there have been well over 100 illegal leaks of information to the media designed to harm Netanyahu and Elovitch in the public sphere prior to the upcoming January trial.
To date, Mandelblit has condemned the leaks, but he said a probe would make matters worse because it would harm freedom of the press, whistleblowers and might not end the leaks, some of which come from competing defendants’ lawyers.
Hayut’s rebuke of the attorney-general – a rare scolding from the judiciary on issues related to the prime minister’s case – may open a new Pandora’s box for law enforcement and the media.
The chief justice even made reference to her criticism of Mandelblit in the decision on Thursday.
Ultimately, the court endorsed a variety of Mandelblit’s reasons: All leaked material was provided to the defendants, one of the key people who the Elovitches wanted to probe is not a public servant and did not necessarily have any special duty to avoid leaks, as many as 160 persons may have had access to the leaked materials, and the defendants will have the chance to cross-examine key figures about leaks at trial.
A key unspoken point was that it seems the justices were ready to pressure Mandelblit at the mid-September hearing but were not ready to go to the mat and compel him to interrogate state prosecution lawyers, police and members of the media.
In addition, the court said the harm to Netanyahu and the Elovitch family was not to their criminal case but mostly to their public image, something that would be less in the realm of criminal probes.


Related Tags
Mandelbilt
Case 4000