At this stage, the Magistrate's Court turned to examine whether there was journalistic privilege in our case. It was held that there is no dispute that Eisenheim "as a journalist, enjoys Relative Confidentiality its sources and information that is liable to expose them" [emphasis in original], but in our case, the source was disclosed to all with his consent. Further, and based on Other Appeal (Tel Aviv District) 47724-01-16 State of Israel v. Israel News Company Ltd. [Nevo] (September 12,2016) (hereinafter: Other Appeal Israel News Company), the Magistrate's Court distinguished between a journalistic source and an interviewee who had no expectation of protecting his identity or his words. Therefore, it was held that "the journalistic privilege does not apply at all to the connection with the source and its identity, and the remainder of the privilege is postponed because of the importance of the existence of the two investigations, while also relying on the raw material that [Assenheim] collected." It was further held that Feldstein was well aware of the interview and that it might lead to the opening of an investigation, and therefore there is no concern that the delivery of the raw materials will lead to a "chilling effect." In light of the above, the Magistrate's Court found that the interest of freedom of the press preceded the investigation of the truth, so that Eisenheim was obligated to hand over all the raw material to the police. It was also held that in light of this Section 38A The Ordinance, which grants the right of appeal, does not apply in relation to Article 43 to the Ordinance; and in light of the judgment in the hearing Criminal Addition 1062/21 Urich v. State of Israel [Nevo] (January 11,2022) (hereinafter: the Matter Urich) - There is no right to appeal the decision.
Copied from Nevo
- Essenheim filed an appeal with the District Court, and on February 17,2026, an interim decision was issued in the proceeding. As to the question of the right to appeal the Magistrate's Court's decision, it was held that despite the absence of a direct statutory source that establishes such a right, in practice, the courts allow judicial review of decisions under Article 43 to the Ordinance; and that the case before us, in which an order against a third party was requested, should be diagnosed as interesting Urich, where an injunction against a suspect was requested. In view of the importance of the right of appeal in our legal system, it has been determined that the right to appeal a decision under Article 43 The Ordinance, however, for considerations of efficiency, the objection will be heard as an appeal before a single judge in a manner consistent with the procedures for appealing interim decisions at the criminal investigation stage.
On the merits of the matter, it was determined that there are relevant and essential investigative needs, in relation to the two relevant affairs, which justify the receipt of the raw materials from Essenheim. In this regard, the District Court accepted the argument that the police, as an investigative body, must exhaust all the directions of the investigation at hand, and that the supplementary investigation conducted against Feldstein does not constitute a substitute for the raw materials in question. Therefore, it was determined that the conditions of relevance and necessity are met according to Article 43 to the Ordinance, as well as the first two tests according to the Citrine (SC 298/86 Citrin v. The Disciplinary Court of the Tel Aviv District Bar Association, IsrSC 41(2) 337 (1987)). At this stage, the court moved on to the third test according to the Citrine, i.e., a balance between the needs of the investigation and the policy considerations of freedom of the press. In this regard, it was held that although policy considerations may be taken into account in relation to the granting of an order by virtue of Article 43 The Ordinance does not accept Essenheim's position that freedom of the press should be granted exclusive priority, a position that in practice results in recognition of absolute journalistic privilege. It was also noted that this position does not recognize weighty public interests that lie on the other side of the scale.