The deviation regarding the registrar's authority is that he is a judge of the procedures set forth in the Civil Procedure Regulations. In view of this conclusion and given the fact that Registrar A. Zamir was also a judge at the time of the relevant decision, it is possible to leave the State's argument that every registrar, even if he is not a judge, is authorized to rule on the aforesaid applications by virtue of the provision of section 90 of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984. However, I am inclined to the opinion that there is no room for such an expansive interpretation of the box "a matter relating to the conduct of a proceeding" set forth in the same section (with regard to the interpretation of this box, compare, for example: sections 90(1)-90(12) of the Courts Law; Miscellaneous Applications Civil 2742/00 Assessor for Large Enterprises v. Dikla Trust Company inTax Appeal [published in Nevo] (August 29, 2000); SC 153/86 Sabich v. State of Israel, IsrSC 40(2) 345, 347 (1986)).
The Reasonableness of the Decision to Recognize the Immunity of Police Officers
- Alternatively, Flexer argues that even if the format in which his request should be discussed according to Section 7b(c) The Ordinance is judicial review according to the rules of administrative law, its approach had room to intervene in the state's decision to recognize the immunity of the police officers in this case, and the trial court erred in not doing so. According to him, this is in view of the evidence presented by him already at this stage of the investigation file, which shows that this is an unreasonable recognition decision, because it ignores the fact that the exception to immunity is met in this case.
I did not see the need to list one by one all the "indications" from which Flexer wishes to conclude that the police acted knowingly and deliberately to harm him, or at least that they acted out of equanimity for the possibility of causing damage. Most of the indications that Flexer detailed are not indications of the mental element of the police during his interrogation, and at most they can attest to their negligence. For example, Flexer claims that the police rushed to search for him and inform the Border Police that they would prohibit him from leaving the country, before they examined Attorney Brandes' complaint (paragraph 11 of Flexer's summaries). Even if this argument is correct, and even if we assume that this constitutes negligence - and needless to say, I do not express any position on this matter - in any case it does not contain what Flexer wishes to learn, namely: the existence of a mental element among the police officers that denies their right to immunity. The same is true with regard to the additional arguments raised by Flexer in relation to