"NBCU is also correct that the privilege may not be overcome simply by asserting that a media interview conducted in a 'relaxed, comfortable and trusting atmosphere, ' […] is more likely to yield usable information than a deposition conducted in an adversarial proceeding. Aside from its dubious premise that a reporter is always more skillful in eliciting admissions than a skillful litigator, the proposition proves too much. It would render the 'journalists' privilege illusory with respect to significant information, at least that uncovered by a skilled reporter. […] Allowing the journalists' privilege to be routinely overcome in such circumstances would risk it 'becom[ing] standard operating procedure for' defendants in criminal cases 'that had been the subject of press attention to sift through press files in search of information supporting their claims'" (at *42-44).
[As an aside, I do not believe that there are any Criminal Miscellaneous 1378/20 Zagori v. State of Israel, paragraphs 24-25 [Nevo] (April 7,2020) in order to assist the police. No request Defendant Receive materials from memory refreshment and supplementary interrogation procedures that have been done Witness Prosecution By virtue of Article 74 The Criminal Procedure Law [Consolidated Version], 5742-1982 is similar to a police request at a stage The Investigation Obtaining Lydia Materials from an Interview Conducted by Journalist By virtue of Article 43 to the Order].
To this it should be added that one may wonder if "Sufficient investigative actions have been taken, as prescribed by the rulings regarding section 43" (עניין מקור ראשון, in paragraph 38 of the judge's judgment רובינשטיין). Thus, for example, from Feldstein's interrogation before the District Court (48/1), we learn that his interrogation revolved, almost entirely, around the nightly meeting affair, and that he was not asked at all about the Bild affair and the affair known as "Qatar Gate."
- In any case, the police did not even meet the burden of proving Relevance All the raw materials. At the outset, I will assume that there is a real basis for the hypothesis that among the raw materials of an interview dealing with cases in which criminal investigations are being conducted, there are materials relevant to those investigations. However, strict adherence to the conditions of relevance implies that it is not possible to suffice with a comprehensive request in which the police seek to receive the All The raw materials ("any document, tape, object or object that is directly or indirectly related to the interview conducted at the corporation by Omri Essenheim to Eliezer Feldstein, including the receipt of all the unedited recordings, documents relating to the interview and anything else that may be related to the investigation" (from the application submitted to the Magistrate's Court) In the order Other 57183-01-26 [Nevo] on January 20,2026). An application that is so broadly worded is a fishing expedition - And not with a rod but with a stick. In my opinion, she argued that all the materials were relevant to the outset; a claim that all the materials should be handed over to the police and only then would it examine which of them is relevant for the investigation; a claim that all the raw materials have potential relevance stemming from the very possibility of comparing what was said in the interview with what was said in the interrogations - all of these are claims that do not meet the actual burden placed on the police to prove the relevance of the requested materials. These arguments are even liable to turn the requirement of relevance into a "dead letter".
- Having said all of this, I will note that I am aware of the alleged "trap" in which the parties find themselves - the police claim that they did not see the raw material, and therefore cannot accurately distill the parts of the material for which the relevant and necessary requirements are met; while Eisenheim is not aware of the material in the possession of the police and the needs of the investigation, so he does not necessarily know which materials the police would classify as relevant if they were in its possession. Still, even given this "vicious circle", this does not lead to the conclusion that the police can demand to receive "everything from everything". I accept Essenheim's position that reversing the order of the examination of the conditions so that the police receive all the materials and only afterwards examine which of them is relevant and necessary for the investigation, is not a proper situation, and certainly does not meet my determination that the court must be very careful and precise in fulfilling the prerequisites in the application under Article 43 to the command.
Conclusion
- In light of my determination that the police did not meet the threshold conditions for filing an application for an order under Article 43 To the Ordinance, I am of the opinion that the police must submit a new request - limited, concrete and in the light of my determinations above - in which it will clarify what substances are relevant to its opinion in the raw materials (even at the level of the headings) and for what purpose they are necessary. From the moment we are concerned with pending criminal investigations, to the extent that there is a reason for doing so, the request or its reasons may be submitted in a sealed envelope that will be submitted to the court at the first stage only. For reasons of procedural efficiency, and since the arguments of the parties have already been heard before us at length, at this stage the police request will be submitted to this court by the day 3.6.2026. After that, Essenheim will be given the right to respond until the day 11.6.2026. After that, the application will be decided, both on the level of Article 43 to the Ordinance and to the level of the justifications for the removal of the privilege.
| Skip to content |