Interpretation of the written requirement in section 9 of the Statute of Limitations
- As is well known, a piece of legislation will be interpreted in accordance with its language and purpose. First, the language of the legislation must be examined and what are the meanings that it has the power to carry (see, among many: Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 3804/22 Nakara v. Haifa Local Planning and Building Committee, verse 41 [Nevo] (29.7.2024); Civil Appeal 2504/24 National Insurance Institute v. Lin, verse 19 [Nevo] (April 21, 2024)). If the language boundaries include a number of possible meanings, it is necessary to choose the meaning that best fulfills the purpose of the legislation (Additional Hearing: High Court of Justice5120/18 Women Call for Childbirth for Freedom of Choice in Childbirth v. State of Israel, verse 86 [Nevo] (21.7.2021); In a Tax Appeal 2255/19 Anonymous vs. Anonymous, verse 23 [Nevo] (23.2.2020)).
- In our case, from a purely linguistic point of view, it seems that the word "in writing" may also include the meaning of recording words that were said orally.
However, in its simple linguistic sense, the word "written" seems to refer to the visual presentation of an inscription or marking, as opposed to oral expression. An expression of this linguistic approach can be found, for example, In section 3 Law Interpretation, 5741-1981, which states that the meaning of the word "in writing" is "including in any other way of presenting letters, digits or signs in a way that is visible or visually decipherable." Similarly, Section 1 To the Ordinance Interpretation (New Version) states that the meaning of the word "writing" is "including in print, lithography, typewriter, photocopy, and any other way of displaying or copying words or literature in a visible form." At the same time, it has already been ruled that in certain contexts the word "in writing" may include a broader meaning. Thus, for example, it was determined that recording words that were said orally, even without the speaker's knowledge, may be considered a "written" statement, for the purpose of Section 10A To the Ordinance The Evidence [New Version], 5731-1971, which deals with admissibility of "a written statement made by a witness outside the court" (Criminal Appeal 594/86 Chelouche v. State of IsraelIsrSC 41(2) 824, 833 (1987); Criminal Appeal 323/84 Shriki v. State of IsraelIsrSC 39(3) 505, 516-517 (1985); Criminal Appeal 869/81 Snir v. State of Israel, IsrSC 38(4) 169, 239 (1984); See also: Criminal Appeal 141/84 State of Israel v. TubulIsrSC 39(3) 596, 603 (1985); Nina Salzman, "Reel Recording as a Document and the Evidentiary Requirement for a Reporter" Law Studies 12 77, 115-117 (1987)).