(-) A case in which a person does not hold an identity card is discussed under section 6c of the procedure - that we will not be attacked in the framework of the petition before us - According to him, "a person who does not carry an identity card - It is possible to try and verify the identification details he provided with the computerized system."
(-) As for the case in which a person does not hold the appendix of his identity card, what is your reason: if the appendix falls within the scope of an "identity card" according to Section 2 of the law, section 6c of the procedure may apply to the case; And if the appendix does not fall within the scope of an "identity card" as aforesaid, then le-khatḥila there is no authority to demand that it be presented according to Section 2 to the law.
Section 5C of the Procedure
- As detailed above, in the framework of the order nisi we instructed the respondent to explain why section 5C of the procedure should not be canceled, which states as follows:
"To the extent that there is a need to exercise additional powers, the police officer must act in accordance with the rules that apply to the performance of these actions and in accordance with the powers under any law, and if there is a need to perform additional actions (questioning, examination in information systems, etc.) after the return of the identity card, the police officer must act in accordance with the rules that apply to the performance of these actions and in accordance with the powers under any law."
- The Respondent notes, as stated, that it agrees to the deletion of this section from the Procedure; However, she further notes that this agreement "does not constitute a waiver of her claims in this context, with regard to the powers of the police to carry out additional policing actions other than the requirement of identification."
The petitioners claim that this comment reflects a lack of acceptance of the determination in the matter Tabqa, according to which Section 2 The law does not authorize the execution of policing activities except for the requirement to present an identity card; Therefore, we request that it be determined that the actions specified in section 5c of the procedure are prohibited on their merits.
- Given that the Respondent agrees to the deletion of section 5C of the procedure, I am of the opinion that the dispute regarding it has become redundant in our case and does not require a decision on the merits of the matter.
More than necessary, I will add that the language of section 5c of the procedure does not indicate this Section 2 The Identity Card Law grants the authority to take additional policing actions, beyond the requirement to present an identity card. This section of the procedure deals with the powers of the police "according to any law", and as is well known, the police have a variety of powers granted to it by various statutes. Given that the procedure in question regulates, in essence, its powers under the Identity Card Law, the Respondent did well to agree to delete the section in question from the procedure; It is clear that the petition before us is not an appropriate framework for clarifying the boundaries of the respondent's powers "according to any law". Of course, if disputes arise between the parties as to the scope of certain powers of the Respondent, by virtue of one statute or another, it will be possible to clarify them in an appropriate proceeding.