No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Digest of Selected Judgments of the Supreme Court of Israel
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2016
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Cases
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1990
References
1 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1 K.A. p. 559. Art. 49 provides: “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive”.
2 22 L.S.I. 20. Regulation 6(b) provides: “Where a warrant of arrest or detention order has been issued against any person in a region in exercise of a power conferred by a proclamation or order of a commander, such warrant or order may be carried out in Israel in the manner in which a warrant of arrest or detention order is carried out in Israel”.
3 Affu & others v. Military Commander in the West Bank (1988) 42(ii) P.D. 4. For a survey of this case, see (1990) 24 Is.L.R. 137.
4 Art. 85 provides: “The sleeping quarters shall be sufficiently spacious and well ventilated, and the internees shall have suitable bedding and sufficient blankets account being taken of the climate …”.
5 K.T. no. 4231, p. 948.
6 Moshav Beit Oved v. Controller of Transportation (1982) 36(iii) P.D. 349.
7 P.G. no. 1442, Supp. No. 2, p. 1055.
8 1 L.S.I. 7.
9 Neiman and others v. Chairman of the Central Committee for the Elections to the 11th Knesset (1985) 39(ii) P.D. 225. For a full discussion of this case see Klein, C., “The Defence of the State and the Democratic Regime in the Supreme Court” (1985) 20 Is.L.R. 397 Google Scholar.
10 Shiran & others v. The Broadcasting Authority & others (1981) 35(iii) P.D. 365.
11 12 L.S.I. 85, sec. 4 provides: “The Knesset shall be elected by general, national, direct, equal, secret and proportional elections, in accordance with the Knesset Elections Law; this section shall not be varied save by a majority of the members of the Knesset”.
12 13 L.S.I. 228, sec. 46 provides: The majority required by this Law for a variation of section 4, 44 or 45 shall be required for decisions of the Knesset plenary at every stage of law-making, except a debate on a motion for the Knesset agenda. In this section, “variation” means both an express and an implicit variation”.
13 38 L.S.I. 101, sec. 15 provides:
(a) The seat of the Supreme Court is Jerusalem.
(b) The Supreme Court shall hear appeals against judgments and other decisions of the District Courts.
(c) The Supreme Court shall sit also as a High Court of Justice. When so sitting, it shall hear matters in which it deems it necessary to grant relief for the sake of justice and which are not within the jurisdiction of another court (beit mishpat or beit din).
(d) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection (c), the Supreme Court sitting as a High Court of Justice shall be competent—
(1) to make orders for the release of persons unlawfully detained or imprisoned.
(2) to order State and local authorities and the officials and bodies thereof, and other persons carrying out public functions under law, to do or refrain from doing any act in the lawful exercise of their functions or, if they were improperly elected or appointed, to refrain from acting;
(3) to order courts (batei mishpat or batei din) and bodies and persons having judicial or quasi-judicial powers under law, other than courts dealt with by this Law and other than religious courts (batei din), to hear, refrain from hearing, or continue hearing a particular matter or to void a proceeding improperly taken or a decision improperly given;
(4) to order religious courts (batei din) to hear a particular matter within their jurisdiction or to refrain from hearing or continue hearing a particular matter not within their jurisdiction, provided that the court shall not entertain an application under this paragraph if the applicant did not raise the question of jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity; and if he had no measurable opportunity to raise the question of jurisdiction until a decision had been given by a religious court (beit din), the court may quash a proceeding taken or a decision given by the religious court (beit din) without authority.
(e) Other powers of the Supreme Court shall be prescribed by Law.
14 Supra n. 7, at 1092. Reg. 130 provides:
(1) The High Commissioner may by order make provision for restricting the use of the telephone service to such persons or classes of persons as he may think fit or for regulating or imposing conditions on the use of the telephone service, and any such order may further make provision for the enforcement thereof by authorising the removal of telephone lines or apparatus and of the entry on property for that purpose or otherwise.
(2) Any person who shall contravene any order made under sub-regulation (1) or any condition imposed by any such order shall be guilty of an offence against these Regulations.
15 Von Glahn, G., The Occupation of Enemy Territory (Minneapolis, 1957) 139 Google Scholar.
16 19 L.S.I. 330.
17 As amended in Planning and Building (Amendment No. 20) Law, 1982 (37 L.S.I. 25), sec. 197 provides:
(a) Subject to the provisions of section 200, where any property situated in or abutting on the area of a Scheme is prejudicially affected by that Scheme, otherwise than by expropriation, a person who on the date of the coming into force of that Scheme was the owner of, or the holder of any right, in that property shall be entitled to compensation from the Local Commission.
(b) The claim for compensation shall be filed with the offices of the Local Commission within one year from the date of the coming into force of the Scheme. The Minister of the Interior may grant an extension on reasonable grounds even if the aforesaid year has already expired.
18 9 L.S.I.184, as amended by the Penal Law (Amendment No. 21) 1987, sec. 6, S.H. no. 1212, p. 80 at 84.
19 L.S.I. Special volume, p. 82.
20 Drayton, , Laws of Palestine, vol. II, p. 1104 Google Scholar.
21 Amendment No. 21, 1987, supra n. 18, at 80.
22 36 L.S.I. 35, at 65. Sec. 167 provides: “When the parties have completed their evidence, the court, if it deems it necessary so to do, may, on the application of a party or on its own motion, direct the summoning of a witness — even though his testimony may already have been heard by the court — and the presentation of other evidence”.
23 Carmel v. State of Israel (1968) 22(ii) P.D. 803.
24 Supra n. 22, at 41.
25 2 L.S.I. [N. V.] 198. As amended in Evidence Ordinance (Amendment No. 4) Law, 1979 (34 L.S.I. 13) sec. 10A provides:
(a) A written statement made by a witness out of court shall be admissible as evidence in a criminal proceeding if—
(1) its making has been proved at the trial and
(2) the person who made it is a witness at the trial and the parties have been given an opportunity to examine him and
(3) the testimony, in the opinion of the court, differs from the statement in a material particular or the witness denies the contents of the statement or alleges that he does not remember its contents.
(b) The court may admit a statement referred to in subsection (a) even if the person who made it is not a witness either because he refuses to testify or is incapable of testifying or because he cannot be brought to court since he is not alive or cannot be found, provided that the court is satisfied, from the circumstances of the case, that improper means have been used to dissuade or prevent the person who made the statement from giving testimony.
(c) The court may base its findings on a statement admitted under this section or on part thereof, and it may prefer such statement to the testimony of the witness, if it sees fit to do so in view of the circumstances of the case, including the circumstances under which the statement was made, the evidence produced at the trial, the conduct of the witness at the trial and indications of the truth which have emerged in the course of the trial. The reasons which prompt the court to do so shall be recorded.
(d) A person shall not be convicted on the basis of a statement admitted under this section unless the evidential material provides corroboration.
26 Ladani v. State of Israel (1982) 36(i) P.D. 29.
27 35 L.S.I. 136.
28 Sec. 32 provides: “Material obtained by the commission of an infringement of privacy shall not be used as evidence in court without the consent of the injured party, unless the court, for reasons which shall be recorded, permits it to be so used or if the infringer, being a party to the proceeding, has a defence or enjoys exemption under this Law”.
29 Katalan & others v. Prison Service & others (1980) 34(iii) P.D. 294.
30 35 L.S.I. 370. Sec. 7 provides: “The word “or” or “other” or a similar expression shall be construed disjunctively and not as implying similarity, unless the word “similar” or some other word of like meaning is added”.
31 As that term is defined in sec. 1 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, 3 L.S.I. [N.V.] 5.
32 34 L.S.I.13. See supra n. 25 for the text of sec. 10A.