The main arguments of the defendants
- Shteif has been a police and criminal affairs correspondent for nearly 30 years at Army Radio. As part of this position, she received information that Naveh had an intimate relationship with interns who expected to receive a benefit from him for this relationship. Against the background of this information, a connection was made between Shteif and Chani, Naveh's ex-wife. In a meeting between the two, Chani told Steif that she was in an "ugly" divorce dispute, and that she had several mobile devices left in her house that Naveh had left for her use. Under these circumstances, Hani was the owner, owner and owner of the right to use the devices.
- It was Hani who handed over the devices to a store that sells equipment to private investigators in order to help her locate information in them for the purpose of the divorce process. However, the employees of the store explained to Hani that they were not engaged in this field. Therefore, she was asked to collect the devices. Under these circumstances, Chani asked Shteif if she could help her in this matter, while noting to her that she was busy with her five young children and had no idea who to contact. At this point, Shteif introduced her to Yuli, who announced that he could assist in the matter. To this end, Yuli asked her to hand over the devices to him.
In order to deliver the devices to Yuli, Chani contacted the same store and announced that the devices would be collected by a courier. Indeed, Yuli sent a courier who collected the devices for him, from which he derived the information.
In this way, the devices were never in Shteif's possession, were not taken or stolen by her, were not held by her and were not hacked by her.
- Yuli was exposed to information that raises a serious suspicion of criminal offenses committed by Naveh and other parties, inter alia, in connection with Naveh's conduct with the appointment and promotion of judges for improper motives. This information related to Naveh's "criminal" conduct. The information did not include personal or professional details, including those protected by attorney-client confidentiality. After a while, Yuli contacted Shteif and shared the information with her.
- As soon as she was exposed to the information and the serious suspicions that arise from it, and since it is information of great public value, Shteif acted in accordance with her legal, professional, ethical and moral obligations. Thus, on December 23,2018, Shteif contacted Elkabetz, who was the commander of Army Radio at the time. Shteif did not share with Elkabetz how she obtained the information, but said that she had materials in her possession that indicated corruption within the legal system related to Naveh.
Elkabetz, who understood that this was sensitive information, convened on December 24,2018, an evaluation meeting with the legal counsel at the offices of Army Radio, in which Steif, Elkabetz, Barkai and Kanti were present. At this meeting, Steif shared with the attendees that she had materials of great public interest relating to Naveh. Steif did not present the materials but provided a general update regarding their nature. The legal advisor who was present at the meeting announced that she would examine and consult as to the way in which Army Radio would treat the information that Shteif disclosed. In addition, she instructed that at this stage the information should not be published, until a directive was given regarding its publication. And so the defendants did.
- On December 27,2018, another meeting was held at Barkai's home in the presence of Steif, Canetti and Shahar. Steif arrived at this meeting with a number of binders. Barkai, Shahar and Kanti only reviewed documents of public interest to which Shteif referred. These materials did not include information relating to Naveh's personal or business affairs, and in any event, the defendants did not use it or publish it. At this meeting, Shteif provided Kanti with an external device - a "disk on key" - that contained materials related to Naveh's case. Shteif asked Kanti to assist her in processing them. However, Kanti was not interested in these materials. After being asked by the investigating authorities, Kanti destroyed the disk-on-key. Later, in accordance with the instructions of the State Attorney's Office, Shteif transferred the information and documents she had to the Israel Police, which opened an investigation against Naveh.
- On January 16,2019, a gag order was lifted in the matter, and the investigation into Naveh's case on suspicion of committing offenses in the field of moral integrity in connection with the appointment of judges became public. With the lifting of the gag order, a special broadcast of the radio program "What's Burning" took place. During the program, Barkai and Kanti referred to the statement of the police spokesperson's office regarding Naveh and other matters relating to the judicial system. Moreover, no material regarding Naveh's case was disclosed in the program. Moreover, at that time, none of the defendants had materials produced from the devices, since these materials were in Ms. Shteif's hands only, and she, as stated, passed them on to the police.
In these circumstances, the defendants have the following defenses In sections 18(2)(a) - 18(2)(d), Section 18(2)(f) and Section 18(3) to the Protection of Privacy Law. The defendants still have the enumerated defense Section 15(11) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law.
- According to defendants 2-6, Shteif did not share with them in real time the manner in which the materials came into her possession and noted that they came to her from Chani. Later, after it became clear that the information had reached her through penetration of telephones, the State Attorney's Office informed Steif that it would not represent her. Thus, in the proceeding before me, the State Attorney's Office represented only Canetti, Shahar, Elkabetz and Army Radio. This dispute was also reflected in the defense's arguments in the proceeding before me: Army Radio (the State) argued Because If it turns out that Shteif acted illegally, then IDF Radio is not responsible for these actions, which deviated from the scope of its work. On the other hand, Shteif claimed that she acted within the framework of her duties and therefore to the extent that she is found responsible for Naveh, Army Radio must take part in this burden, with vicarious responsibility for Steif's journalistic activity.
- In the hearing before me, the following witnesses testified:
On behalf of the plaintiff: the plaintiff; Adv. Elisha Attias (Naveh's partner in the law firm); Mr. Doron Herman (who was a criminal correspondent for Channel 13 at the relevant times of the lawsuit); CPA Kobi Steinmetz (prepared an economic opinion מצד Nah).