However, when the decision brings to an end the litigation between the parties to the proceeding, or decides in favor of a third party and they are unable to turn to another judicial instance to continue the hearing of the matter in order to protect their right, this will constitute a decisive consideration for classifying it as a "judgment" that can be appealed by right (Criminal Appeals Authority 6016/06 Cuban v. State of Israel VAT, Tel Aviv, para. 5 [published in Nevo] (July 17,2007); Criminal Appeals Authority 8274/99 Hilaf v. State of Israel, IsrSC 55(1) 433,436-437 (2000) (hereinafter: the Khalaf case); Hassan case, at pp. 693-694).
- An examination of the characteristics of a decision in a request for a search warrant on a computer (and even in a search warrant in general, when practicable), indicates, in my opinion, that it should be classified as a "judgment" with respect to the objection to it. This is because the decision decides, as stated, whether the privacy of the computer owner or the holder of the computer can be violated in order to advance the investigation proceedings, and what is the extent of the infringement necessary for the purposes of the investigation; The decision will be made at the interrogation stage, and before an indictment is filed against the interrogee - who may not be a suspect in the case at all; In many cases, the investigating authorities complete their work after the search is carried out and decide to close the file; In any event, the violation of the interrogee's privacy cannot be cured in the framework of the main proceeding even if it is decided to prosecute him - even though it will be possible to take into account his objections to the legality of a warrant in determining the weight of the search findings and in sentencing him (see also the Urich I case, at para. 29; the Urich II case, at para. 26(d); High Court of Justice 49/62 Kluger v. Inspector General of the Israel Police, IsrSC 16 1267,1273 (1962); United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530 (1971); Assaf Harduf, "A Façade of Rights, the Essence of Justice: The Rhetorical and Essential Story of the Criminal Judgment, " Din Ve-Devarim 8 33,36 (2014); cf. Criminal Appeals Authority 10622/07 Smorgansky v. State of Israel, para. 3 [published in Nevo] (January 10,2008)).
Therefore, I am of the opinion that such decisions conclude an independent and separate proceeding, which is not part of the criminal trial that will be opened against the interrogee if it is decided to prosecute him, and determine whether the requested remedy for which the proceeding was opened should be granted, and it is therefore appropriate to view such decisions as an independent procedural unit whose results will be subject to appellate review.