Criminal Appeal 04 / 1761
Gilad Sharon
Against
The States of Israel
In the Supreme Court sitting as a Court of Criminal Appeals
[29.3.2004]
Before the Vice-President (ret.) T. Or andJudges A. Matza, M. Cheshin,
D. Beinisch, A. A. Levy
David Libai, Kenneth Mann, Micha Patman – on behalf of the appellant;
Efrat Barzilai, Senior Deputy A and Supervisor of Criminal Affairs at the State Attorney’s Office; Yehoshua Lemberger, Senior Deputy to the State Attorney’s Office; Gal Levartov, Senior Deputy A of the Tel Aviv District Attorney (Criminal) – on behalf of the Respondent.
Judgment
Vice President (Ret.) T. Or
- The appeal before us concerns questions relating to the scope of a house's jurisdiction-The Law by Virtue of Article 43 30Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Arrest and Search) [New Version], 566"I-1969 (hereinafter – Article 43) and the scope of the duties of the person to whom an order was given by virtue of him. This is the wording of the section:
| "An invitation to display an object | 43. If a judge determines that the presentation of an object is necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation or trial, he may summon any person, who is presumed to be in possession or in possession of the object, to appear and display the object, or to produce it, at the time and place specified in the order" (my emphasis – T. A.). |
The facts, the proceedings and the main points of the dispute
- Appellant Gilad Sharon - son of Rosh-Government Ariel Sharon - Interrogated as a suspect in the National Unit for Fraud Investigations of the Israel Police. In the course of this investigation, the police requested to receive documents which, to the best of the investigators' knowledge, were in the appellant's possession. In the special circumstances that were created – the existence of immunity from a search of the father's home (by virtue of Section 2 30The Immunity of Members of Knesset Law, Their Rights and Duties, תשי"A-1951), with whom the appellant lived, and the preference of those in charge of the investigation to refrain from requesting the removal of the immunity – the police requested the issuance of an order to hand over the said documents by virtue of Article 43.
On July 16, 2003, the appellant was served with an order issued by the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Magistrate's Court instructing him to produce documents in the affair known as the Cyril Keren affair (hereinafter – the first order). The appellant's argument that he has the right to remain silent, and that he is not obligated to provide the documents in accordance with the order, was rejected by the court. An appeal against this decision before the District Court was granted, and it was determined that the appellant was not obligated to act in accordance with the order. The State filed an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the District Court. Permission was granted and the appeal was granted. In the judgment given inCriminal Appeal Authority 8600/03 State of Israel v. Gilad Sharon (hereinafter – the first judgment [1]), this court held that the appellant does not have the right to remain silent against the delivery of documents that he was ordered to provide by order, but he has a claim of confidentiality against self-incrimination only. The judgment further determined that the Magistrate's Court would examine the documents that the appellant was required to provide, to the extent that he was required to provide them, and to the extent that he refused to provide them, and that after reviewing the documents, the court would decide on the question of confidentiality against self-incrimination of those documents.