| In the Supreme Court sitting as a Court of Civil Appeals |
| Civil Appeal 1649/09 | |
| Civil Appeal Authority 775/11 |
| Before: | H.E. President A. Grunis |
| The Honorable Vice President M. Naor | |
| The Honorable Judge S. Jubran | |
| The Honorable Judge A. Hayut | |
| The Honorable Judge H. Melcer | |
| The Honorable Justice N. Hendel | |
| The Honorable Judge Y. Amit |
| Appellant Other Municipal Applications 1649/09: | Avraham Flexer |
| The Applicant in Civil Appeal Authority 775/11: | Adv. Olga Gordon |
| Against |
| Respondents Other Municipal Applications 1649/09: | 1. The State of Israel – Israel Police |
| 2. Deputy Superintendent Aryeh Eidelman | |
| 3. Superintendent of Police Dudi Bar |
| Respondents in Civil Appeal Authority 775/11: | 1. Estate of the late David Shai z”l |
| 2. Upper Nazareth Municipality | |
| 3. Adv. Sara Shai |
| Appeal against the judgment of the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court, dated December 9, 2007, inMiscellaneous Civil Applications 12915/07 (Civil Case 1021/07), [published in Nevo] given by the Honorable Registrar A. Zamir |
| Application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Nazareth District Court, dated December 20, 2010, inCivil Appeal Authority 21404-12-10, [published in Nevo] given by the Honorable Judge A. Avraham – Deputy |
| Date of Meeting: | 2 Adar 5773 (12.2.2013) |
| On behalf of the appellant Other Municipal Applications 1649/09: | Himself |
| On behalf of the Applicant in Civil Appeal Authority 775/11: | Adv. Tali Ben Simon |
| On behalf of the respondents, Other Municipality Applications 1649/09 and on behalf of the Attorney General in Civil Appeal Authority 775/11: | Adv. Michal Bardenstein |
| On behalf of respondents 1 and 3 in Civil Appeal Authority 775/11: | Adv. Yehoshua Rubin |
| On behalf of Respondent 2 in Civil Appeal Authority 775/11: | Adv. Moran Barda Malka |
| Judgment |
Judge E. Hayut:
Immunity of all types of public servants from tort claims under Amendment 10 toThe Torts Ordinance [New Version] (Hereinafter: The Command) and the unique legal procedures that were set for clarification - these are the issues that are to be decided in the appeal proceedings before us.
Summary of the facts and judgments in the courts of first instance
Civil Appeal 1649/09 Avraham Flexer v. Israel Police et al.
- On January 5, 2000, Attorney Hanina Brandes contacted the State Attorney at the time and requested that a criminal investigation be opened against the accountant of his firm, Mr. Avraham Flexer (hereinafter: Flexer or The Appellant), on suspicion of stealing documents related to a trust account held for the late President Ezer Weizmann, who was a client of the firm, and passed them on to journalist Yoav Yitzhak. Following the complaint, the State Attorney's Office ordered the opening of a criminal investigation. Deputy Superintendent Aryeh Eidelman was appointed head of the investigation team, and the team included Superintendent David Bar (hereinafter together): The police). The police summoned Flexer for questioning and ordered his detention to be extended, which was even extended by the Magistrate's Court. After spending seven days in detention, Flexer was released on January 18, 2000, and on March 8, 2001, the District Attorney's Office decided Civil Case to close the investigation file against him due to the lack of sufficient evidence. About seven years later, on January 22, 2007, Flexer filed a lawsuit in the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court against the State of Israel and the police, claiming that they were negligent in conducting his interrogation, including as far as the decision to keep him in custody was concerned. The statement of claim includes many allegations against the policemen, including alleging that they refrained from questioning relevant witnesses, that they leaked details from the investigation to the press, and that in the hearing that took place regarding the extension of the detention, they deliberately concealed material facts from the court, and it was even claimed that Superintendent Bar testified in this context knowingly false testimony. Flexer further claimed in his lawsuit that the police sought to glorify their name in the media and satisfy their lust for publicity, while ignoring the serious damage caused to him as a result of the deprivation of his liberty and the damage to his good name and reputation