Examples:
- Identification of a person who is present in the place, time and circumstances from which it can be inferred that he is there for a prohibited or improper purpose.
- Identification of those involved or witnesses for the purpose of a future summons for clarification/investigation.
- A person refuses the instructions of a police officer according to the law and is required to document the encounter, and for this purpose details are required that appear on the identity card.
- The petitioners claim that in the judgment in the Tabqa It was determined that the procedure must include objective and clear criteria for exercising the authority under Section 2 to the law; and that, in contrast, the standard set out in section 4a(5) of the procedure - "Concern" - Subjective and vague. The petitioners emphasize that the first example presented in the framework of the section in question illustrates the risk that the judgment in the matter Tabqa sought to prevent, to exercise the authority in question in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner; Because the second example expresses an attempt to "circumvent" the instructions The Arrests Law regarding the detention of a suspect or witness; and that the case described in the third example is already regulated by specific provisions of the law, so it should not be regulated by the general authority In the section 2 to the Identity Card Law.
- On the other hand, the Respondent argues that Section 4A(5) of the Procedure is fully consistent with the principles established in the matter Tabqa, according to which, inter alia, the exercise of the authority under Section 2 The law is not contingent on the existence of a "reasonable suspicion" of the commission of an offense. The Respondent emphasizes that the clause in question in the procedure regulates the authority to demand identification in circumstances that relate to the difficult core of the police's functions - Maintaining public order, preventing offenses and apprehending criminals. It was further argued that the argument that in the absence of a reasonable suspicion that an offense had been committed, the police had no authority to demand identification, was an attempt to challenge the precedent established in the matter Tabqa; and that accepting this argument will severely harm the work of the police, since the requirement that a person identify himself given the suspicion that an offense has been committed is an essential, basic and proportionate tool in the police toolbox. The Respondent adds that the powers set forth in the The Arrests Law, which deals with the detention of a suspect or witness, are "far beyond the authority" to demand identification, so that these sections do not create a "negative arrangement" in our case.
Section 4A(5) of the Procedure - Discussion and Decision
- As stated, the petition before us concerns the respondent's procedure In the matter Its powers according to Section 2 of the Identity Card Law; I will therefore return and set upand Before our eyes:
Holding and presenting an ID card
- A resident who has reached the age of 16 must always carry an identity card with him and present it to a senior police officer, the head of a local authority, a police officer or a soldier in the performance of their duties, when required to do so.
However, as detailed above, in the matter of Tabqa It was ruled that Section 2 The law authorizes, in and of itself, the entities listed therein - including the police - Require a person to identify themselves with an ID card. However, this does not mean that the section of the law in question authorizes these bodies to require a person to present an identity card in any set of circumstances. The question in which cases those entities are permitted to exercise the authority in question therefore involves interpretation Section 2 to the law (see: Matter Tabqa, verse 19). As a starting point for our interpretation of this section are the rulings of the judgment in the matter of Tabqa, where it was held, inter alia, that "the requirement that a person identify himself before a police officer by means of an identity card may lead to a real violation of the right to human dignity" (ibid., para. 21); and even comes within the definition of "delay", as defined in the law The Arrests, taking into account the restriction of liberty that this entails (ibid., v. 20; see also: Suggestion The Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Powers - Detention, Detention and Release), 5755-1995, H.H. 2366 (hereinafter: The Detentions Bill), at p. 327).
- As stated, Section 4A(5) of the Procedure states, Section 2 The law authorizes a police officer to require a person to present an identity card, given the "concern" that the person has committed, or is about to commit, an offense; Or given the "concern" that an offense was committed and that person was a witness to it.
If so, we must decide the exegetical question, if indeed Section 2 The Identity Card Law includes the authority stated in section 4a(5) of the procedure; I will preface by saying that I believe that this should be answered in the negative.
- As is well known, in our legal system, a law must be interpreted in accordance with its language and purpose; The interpretation must be feasible in terms of the language of the legislation and best realize its purpose (see, among many: High Court of Justice 7755/14 Clear - Environmental Protection Association v. Commissioner of Petroleum Affairs, verse 9 [Nevo] (28.12.2016)).
- As for the linguistic level, given the rulings of the Tabqa, I am willing to assume that Section 2 The Identity Card Law may bear the meaning attributed to it in section 4a(5) of the procedure. However, Section 2 The law is silent in relation to the circumstances in which the authority granted under it will be established, and in any case it does not explicitly indicate the meaning attributed to it in section 4a(5) of the procedure.
Therefore, we turn to tracing the purpose of Section 2 to the law.