This examination will be carried out on two levels – the narrow and the wide. On the narrow plane, our eyes are on the words of the law. This is the first stage of interpreting a law in the spirit of the Basic Laws. So far I have discussed the above.
The list of considerations that have been brought is not meant to be a closed list. I do not ignore the fact that there is a certain overlap between some of the considerations presented. The main thing is the weight of the considerations, and even more so their cumulative weight.
Now, in order to complete the task, it is necessary to examine the interpretation of the law – in accordance with the spirit of the Basic Laws in a broader way. This examination will examine not only the words of the law but also their meaningin the broader context. This examination will include tests attributed to administrative law, including judicial review, that are relevant to the decision. These tests are valid regardless of the Basic Laws. There is an overlap between the familiar examination of administrative law and the interpretive examination of the spirit of the Basic Laws. For example, reasonableness and proportionality are tools in both. In addition, this is important in view of the position of the Deputy Attorney General (Consultation) that was taken in the Netanya Municipality case, as well as in view of the dispute between my colleagues and the justices of the peace that was brought above.
- (a) The Decision-Maker:
In the framework of the interpretation of a law that was enacted prior to the enactment of the Basic Laws and the examination of its implementation, there is a difference when a court comes to examine the scope of discretion granted to the court (such as an arrest order or a foreclosure order), and when a court comes to examine the scope of discretion given to the municipality (such as a law prohibiting the sale of pork).
The Knesset authorized the Ashkelon Municipality, like other municipalities, to decide on legislation prohibiting the sale of pork. The discretion granted to the municipality is not judicial discretion but political discretion. The scope of the court's review is more limited. He must examine whether the considerations were improper and pertinent, whether there was a flaw in the decision-making process, and whether the municipality was aware that it had additional legislative options than a sweeping prohibition, such as a prohibition in part of the city. As part of these considerations, he must examine whether the decision is unreasonable.