In fact, according to the worker's method, it is possible to intervene in every detail of the Supreme Court's judgment through the broad definition of the worker regarding the cause of deviation from authority. Thus, for example, it can be said that if we accept the position of the worker that she did not commit any offense, then the Supreme Court "exceeded its authority" when it convicted the worker of an offense that she did not commit. Clearly, this is not the intention of the case law on the ground of intervention of deviation from authority, with regard to the rejection of this broad method of interpretation of "deviation from authority", see Prof. Yoav Dotan, "Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion" (Vol. 1, 2022):
"How, then, is it possible to solve the difficulties involved in distinguishing between purely legal errors and those that go to the root of the authority of the administrative authority? It seems that the proper test in this matter must meet several requirements: First, it must be a minimalist test, that is, a test that will not allow any subordinate to easily turn any claim of any mistake on the part of the administrative authority into an attack on its authority; " (my emphasis - G.H.).
- Hence, the case law held that the cause of deviation from jurisdiction in this context is only when the judicial institution decides on an issue that is not within the scope of its defined functional powers. However, as long as the issue in dispute is within the functionally defined authority of the internal judicial institution, the interpretation of the law and factual determinations, even if they are erroneous, will not constitute a deviation from authority. This test has been referred to in case law as the "functional test", according to which as long as the institution fulfills the function intended for it, it is not possible to intervene in its decisions on the grounds of lack of authority.
In this regard, see the beautiful and long-standing judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Civil Appeal 203-57 Eliezer Rubinsky v. the Authorized Officer under the Condominiums Law, 5713-1952 [published in the Nevo database] (November 10, 1958), which has not yet been completed: