Civil Appeal Authority 775/11 Avraham Flexer v. State of Israel – Israel Police - part 8

It is incumbent upon him to show that the decision of the Deputy State Attorney to recognize the immunity of the police officers exceeded the realm of reasonableness.  As to the lack of detail and reasoning in the notice of recognition, the respondents claim that in the past, when the State Attorney's Office began implementing Amendment 10 to the Ordinance, in most cases short notices of recognition were given without explanations.  However, according to the respondents, since 2009 this practice has changed, and today the parties responsible for this in the State Attorney's Office are in the habit of detailing in their statements the reasons for recognizing immunity.  In any event, the respondents claim that to the extent that there was a flaw in the absence of reasoning in the past, it has now been cured in light of the detailed reasoning that was laid out in the respondents' arguments in this proceeding, and they further claim that Adv. Orit Son, the current Deputy State Attorney (Civil Affairs), also reviewed the administrative evidentiary basis and relied retroactively on the recognition of immunity from the reasons detailed.  As to the argument that the Registrar of the District Court was not authorized to decide on Flexer's application to determine that the conditions of immunity were not met, the Respondents claim that the Ordinance and the Regulations determine that a decision on this application is within the authority of the "Court" and this term also includes the Registrar, in the absence of any other provision stating that he is not authorized to decide.  This is especially so, the respondents argue, where we are dealing with a registrar who is a judge, as in our case.  Finally, the respondents claim that the recognition of the immunity of the police officers did not harm Flexer's chances of proving his claim.  According to them, the dispute between the parties regarding the questionnaires sent by Flexer to the state stemmed mainly from the fact that the state believed that they were worded in a burdensome and sarcastic manner.  In any event, the respondents note, the parties reached an agreement on this issue and the police officers answered the questionnaires addressed to them.