On the contrary, as stated in the words of retired President Hayut in paragraph 120 in the Urich case itself: "Even when it is determined that there was a flaw in a judicial decision from the investigation stage, the examination conducted by the court hearing the main proceeding focuses on the implications of that decision on the defendant's case - for example, on the question of the admissibility and weight of the evidence collected - and not on the justification of the judicial decision on its merits." In other words, my own words, the impact of defects discovered during the interrogation on the admissibility and weight of evidence must be examined in accordance with the concrete circumstances of the proceeding, and in accordance with the tests that have long been established in the Issacharov ruling (Criminal Appeal 5121/98 Issacharov v. Military Prosecutor, IsrSC 61(1) 461 (2006)), in the case law that followed it and in its enacted expression in section 56A of the Evidence Ordinance.
This is exactly how the Supreme Court acted in the Abergel case, in which it was held that the police had interpreted the scope of the search warrant given to it on the basis of a different warrant in a broader than proper manner, and had unlawfully searched the caravan of a person who was not the subject of the warrant, and the court was not aware that he also lived there. The court ruled that the search was illegal, and therefore the evidence that was lawfully seized was not obtained, and since this is a blatant illegality, of a very significant level of severity, with a distorted interpretation of the search warrant that was given, the evidence should be disqualified in accordance with the Issacharov rule and the defendant should be acquitted. Precisely, it was not held that the order was null and void, even though it ostensibly permitted, according to its wording, a search of any place included in the Zoning Ordinance, but that the police interpreted it in a more expansive manner than it should have, and was not entitled to act by virtue of it as it did.