Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 7000/19 Anonymous v. Israel Prison Service

Summary of the arguments of the parties in the appeal

The appellant's main argument is that the decision not to extend his service (which he repeatedly defined throughout the appeal as a decision on "dismissal", which I will refer to later) includes selective, improper and illegal enforcement. According to him, the rule in the civil service in general and in the law enforcement authorities in particular is that an employee is not fired only because of a police investigation being conducted against him, or even because an indictment has been filed, but only after he has been convicted. In support of the claim of discrimination, the appellant's counsel attached data received in the framework of freedom of information requests from which he submitted, which, according to him, shows the actual situation. Moreover, the appellant reiterated his claim of flaws in the hearing process that was held for him, and in the interview with the Director of Public Prosecutions. According to him, there was no basis for the recommendation of the Director General not to extend his service, contrary to the Commissioner's decision given a few days earlier to make do with only suspension and not dismissal. In addition, he was not given sufficient time to prepare for the hearing, and in the course of the interview of the extension committee headed by the Department of Defense, his right to representation was violated. The appellant was also not given the right to inspect the documents from his personal file, and thus his right to plead was also violated.
The respondent, on the other hand, insisted that the appeal should be dismissed. According to her, the appellant's argument that the decision not to extend his service for an additional period is equivalent to a decision to dismiss him should not be accepted. At the time when the appellant's service extension was considered, when there were serious suspicions against him as detailed above and administrative evidence of a breach of his duties as a prison guard, there was no reason to accept his request for an extension of the period of service. The respondent also rejected the appellant's claims of discrimination and selective enforcement, and argued that the presentation of the data was inaccurate, and in any event, the data related to dismissal and not to the non-extension of service, as in our case. As to the appellant's arguments regarding the interview conducted for him by the Civil Defense Department, the recommendation of the Civil Defense Department is only a preliminary stage and does not constitute a final decision in the request for extension. The final decision on the request for an extension was made by Brigadier General Cohen, only after a hearing proceeding was held in accordance with the law, after the recommendation and the opinion were examined and additional considerations placed before it were considered. There is also no substance to the appellant's claims regarding the receipt of the criminal investigation materials, since their transfer is not under the authority of the IPS and it is not at all known whether the appellant contacted the relevant parties in order to receive them.

Discussion and Decision

After reviewing the written arguments of the parties, hearing them in the hearing that took place before us, and reviewing the confidential material submitted to us by the respondent and the main arguments of the appellant's counsel at the hearing in the criminal proceeding, which were submitted to us after the hearing, I am satisfied that the appeal should be dismissed, and thus I will suggest to my colleagues that it be done.

The Normative Framework

The starting point is that the IPS, like the police and the IDF, is given broad discretion to determine a person's suitability to serve within its ranks, and the courts' intervention in decisions in this area is narrow (see: Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 7926/15 Haj v. Inspector General of the Israel Police, [published in Nevo], paragraph 6 (October 13, 2016); High Court of Justice 8225/07 Sadiq v. Police Commissioner - Rabbi Dudi Cohen, [published in Nevo] paragraphs 34-36 (July 6, 2009) (hereinafter: the Sadiq case); High Court of Justice 753/08 Twito v. State of Israel - Prison Service, [published in Nevo], para. 4 (May 11, 2008); High Court of Justice 2234/06 Shroff v. Commissioner of the Prison Service [published in Nevo] (July 27, 2006) (hereinafter: the Shroff case)). The IPS Ordinance also grants the IPS Commissioner broad powers as part of his overall responsibility to manage the IPS manpower system, maintain its professional level and fully adapt it to fulfill its duties. The powers of the Commissioner in this context are regulated in section 80(c) of the Ordinance, which states as follows:

Related articles