Civil Appeal 4584/10 State of Israel v. Regev - part 74

In its ruling, the District Court criticized the police and law enforcement officials in an unusually harsh manner and did not, in my opinion, show sensitivity to the complexity and difficulty of police activity in general, and in this particular case.  In the meantime, it appears that the District Court did not consider the delicate balance required between the public interest in the war on crime, the need to discover the truth, and the protection of the rights of the individual that is the subject of the criminal proceeding – considerations that may be in tension with each other.  Striking complex balances between these considerations is a built-in element in a criminal investigation, as well as in the criminal proceedings in court.  Against this background, it is also important to emphasize the importance of ensuring the public's confidence in the law enforcement authorities and the judicial system, which are entrusted with investigating the factual truth and determining the legal truth in light of it.  Telling the truth, as stated, is required of the investigative bodies, the prosecution and, above all, the courts.  Of course, improper conduct on the part of police officers requires condemnation and criticism, and in appropriate cases, disciplinary proceedings on the part of the police officers according to the circumstances.  At the same time, all of the aforementioned factors are obligated to respect the dignity of the interrogee as well as the dignity of a witness, and first and foremost the court is obligated to do so, as it has been said more than once: "The judge is obligated to respect the dignity of every person, including the dignity of a witness, a police officer and an interrogee, and he must prevent an interrogation that is 'unfair' or 'which constitutes insult, intimidation, misleading [sic, A.A.] that is irrelevant and unfair.'"Section 2 to the Procedure Amendment Law (Examination of Witnesses), 5718-1957).  and if this is the case with regard to preventing others from harming witnesses, it is all the more so with regard to the judge himself" (see High Court of Justice 188/96 Cherinsky v. Vice President, IsrSC 52(3) 721, 744 (1998)).