Civil Appeal Authority 775/11 Avraham Flexer v. State of Israel – Israel Police - part 29

Given the fact that the notice of recognition in this case was given only about a year after Amendment 10 to the Ordinance and the Torts Regulations came into effect, it seems that these defects can be attributed to the fact that sufficient experience has not yet been accumulated at that stage in operating the unique mechanism established by the amendment for the purpose of recognizing the immunity of state employees.  This, of course, does not negate the flaws that occurred in the state's conduct as detailed above, but it appears that in practice they did not prejudice Flexer's procedural or substantive rights.  This is because the state's response to his request is in accordance with the Section 7b(c) The order was reasoned and relied mainly on the investigation file.  This case was also open to Flexer, as indicated by the arguments he presented, and he was given the opportunity to respond to the state's arguments in response to the response.  As to the absence of an affidavit on behalf of the party that made the recognition decision.  A review of the state's response shows that in addition to the investigation file - which is the administrative evidence on which the state relied in its decision, and its content is not in dispute - the only fact that was claimed in the response and which needed to be supported by the affidavit was the fact that the two policemen were interviewed by the State Attorney's Office who handled the case (paragraph 24 of the state's response).  This fact was detailed in the affidavits of the police officers that were attached to the response.  Therefore, it appears that in the present case, and as far as the affidavit is concerned, it is a procedural mistake that did not infringe on Flexer's rights, and with regard to errors of this kind, the court is given broad discretion to decide its relevance (תק' 526 to the Civil Procedure Regulations; גורן, at p.  9; Civil Appeal 1046/90 Brochian v.  Kli, Piskei Din 45(5) 345, 352 (1991); Miscellaneous Applications Civil 6171/04 Michaeli v.  Bank Leumi Le-Israel Ltd., Piskei Din 58(6) 361, 366 (2004)).  In the circumstances described above, I did not see room to invalidate the notice of recognition and the response to Flexer's request, despite the defects that occurred in them, as stated, for the reasons I discussed above.  In a parenthetical article and with a forward-looking view, it is not superfluous to note that in its arguments, the State noted that the defect in the lack of reasoning that occurred in the acknowledgment notice that was given in the matter of the police officers in the Flexer lawsuit, unfortunately characterized additional acknowledgments that were given in the period close to the entry into force of Amendment 10, but it further emphasized that this defect was corrected later and that in the acknowledgments currently submitted to the courts, care is taken to detail the reasoning.