This rule, which limits the court's intervention to the grounds for administrative intervention, is especially valid if the decision of the administrative authority is based on the recommendation of a professional body, as was done in the circumstances under discussion in which the professional aspects were presented to the composition of the hearing committee by the professional opinion of three district pharmacists. In these circumstances, the rule is therefore that "as long as the decision of the authority does not deviate from the range of reasonableness, that is, as long as it is a decision that a reasonable administrative authority could have made, the court will not intervene in the decision (...) This is usually the case, and this is especially the case when the administrative authority bases its decision on the professional opinions of professional bodies (...). Where the authority has employed experts on its behalf, the court will not place itself as an expert..." (Application for Administrative Appeal 3186/03 State of Israel v. Ein Dor, IsrSC 58(4) 754 (2004), the Honorable Justice D. Beinisch, para. 9 and also the case law there).
- In their arguments before the editors of the hearing and in the petition at hand, the petitioners raised almost every possible administrative ground as justifying intervention in the decision. After we have discussed the factual aspect at length, we will examine the petitioners' many arguments.
- Holding the hearing in writing rather than orally: Despite the advantages that an oral hearing procedure may sometimes have, it is not necessary to conduct a hearing in this particular way. As it has been determined more than once,"The obligation to hear (...) It can be accomplished in a large number of ways, and usually, the administrative authority will fulfill its duty by allowing a written hearing, when only in special circumstances is the duty to hear Charge the administrative authority to hold an oral hearing" (emphasis in original) (High Court of Justice 10307/08 Association of Advertising Companies v. Second Authority for Television and Radio (December 8, 2008), the Honorable Judge Y. Danziger, paragraph 5; High Court of Justice 6339/05 Matar v. Commander of IDF Forces in the Gaza Strip, IsrSC 59(2) 846 (2005), the Honorable President E. Barak, para. 11; High Court of Justice 976/07 Collagen Plastic Products inTax Appeal v. Investment Center under the Encouragement of Capital Investments Law (December 29, 2011), the Honorable Justice A. Rubinstein, para. 29).
In the circumstances under discussion, the summons to the hearing included all the arguments raised against the petitioners and their conduct, all the relevant documents were transferred to them, and they were given a full opportunity to respond to all the arguments and to do so at a time that suited them, after a number of lengths were given. The petitioners did respond to all the arguments, initially providing partial answers and eventually submitting a long, detailed and complete letter and even attached appendices to it. An examination of the decision at the hearing shows that indeed all of the petitioners' many arguments were examined in depth and discussed extensively, so that no right of the petitioners was deprived of due to the holding of the hearing in writing and not orally.
- The Claim Regarding the Correction of the Defects: The petitioners claimed that the deficiencies found in the audit and in the additional inspections that were conducted were corrected. This included the fact that after the appointment of a new responsible pharmacist (Jabareen), the Tiberias branch was granted a permit to practice cannabis, which is valid until December 10, 2024.
With regard to this argument, I accept the respondents' arguments that all the deficiencies that were at the basis of the hearing proceeding accumulated after the license was granted following the appointment of the pharmacist in charge, and that only some of them were found earlier. These included illegal registrations, gaps in the management of records regarding cannabis dealing (which requires registration in the Register of Prescriptions and the Register of Dangerous Drugs), in a manner that raised concerns about their reliability, and registrations that were not made by the responsible pharmacist. The return to destruction was found without authorization and without full documentation, and a lack of cannabis was found compared to the records. In addition, in a disciplinary proceeding against the previous pharmacist in charge, he admitted that cannabis preparations were issued in the Tiberias branch not through a pharmacist, but through another employee. In addition, objects prohibited in possession under the Drugs Ordinance were found. All of this is as detailed in the decision at the hearing.