An examination of the relevant case law shows that a rule recognizing such inherent authority has not yet been established. The origin of the idea of recognizing the aforementioned inherent authority is apparently found in a clear incidental statement by the judge S. Levin, as a single den, inRetrial 5921/99 Shuker v. State of Israel [Nevo] (November 11, 1999), in other words:
"Should a claim that there was a manifest error in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal be rejected in any case? Not necessarily. Without deciding on the matter, and without experiencing any opinion as to the very existence of claims of this kind in the case before us, it is not impossible in my opinion that in exceptional circumstances, the court that gave the judgment, on the basis of its inherent authority, is entitled to examine the argument and amend its judgment, if indeed there was a clear and glaring error with regard to the sentence, which caused the defendant a miscarriage of justice" (ibid., in paragraph 4).
The Judge's Statement S. Levin, quoted above, was adopted, shortly after it was given, and again in a clear incidental statement, by the judge A. Matza, in the judgment inHigh Court of Justice 6496/99 A.L.A.D. To the City of David v. The Supreme Court sitting as a Court of Civil Appeals, IsrSC 55(1) 193, 197 (1999), and again during the hearing inAdditional Hearing: High Court of Justice247/04 Minister of Finance v. Marciano, paragraph 6 [Nevo] (10.5.2004).
The said approach was also defined, incidentally, as one that is in doubt, in the judge's judgment A. Hayut OnCivil Appeal 2062/02 Holon Contractors and Builders Association v. Holon Municipality, paragraph 3 [Nevo] (20.9.2004)).
- There is a good reason to recognize the existence of the aforementioned inherent authority: as is well known, judgments of this Court cannot be appealed; The boundaries of the Court of Justice's intervention in the rulings of the Supreme Court are very limited; And the door to petition for another hearing is also narrow.
The result is that there may be an error in the judgment of this court, sitting as an appellate court, which will not formulate grounds for petitioning the High Court of Justice or even for holding an additional hearing, and even when the panel in the appeal is convinced that there was indeed an error in the judgment issued by it, which deserves to be corrected, it will be unable to save.