Bezeq affair suspects appeal remand extension
Owner of communications giant Shaul Elovitch and former Netanyahu family advisor Nir Hefetz appeal decision by judge who abruptly replaced Ronit Poznanski-Katz following revelations of foul play in arrest extension hearing; attorneys: 'There’s never been anything like this in Israel.’
The court also extended the remand of strategy advisor Eli Kamir until Wednesday despite their attorney’s efforts to secure their immediate release after disciplinary investigations were launched against Tel Aviv Magistrates' Court Judge Ronit Poznanski-Katz and the attorney representing the Israel Securities Authority (ISA), Eran Shacham-Shavit, after an exchange of text messages between the two raised suspicions they were coordinating the remand extensions of suspects.
“If justice exists, may it show itself immediately,” the suspects’ attorneys added into the appeal, quoting a verse from a famous poem by the early 20th century poet Hayim Nahman Bialik. Legal discussions are set to be held on Tuesday at 9am.
The appeal, which was submitted by Elovitch’s and Hefetz’s attorneys, Jack Chen and Yaron Kostelitz respectively, highlighted the revelations of the text messages and called for an investigation into Shacham-Shavit.
“There has never been anything like this in the State of Israel. There is no dispute that yesterday it was exposed that all procedures for detaining the appellants were coordinated between the attorney representing the ISA and the judge,” it noted.
“This involves the serious flaws that go to the root of the legality of the appellants’ arrest, and demands their immediate release due to the doctrine of the defense of justice,” the appeal continued.
The attorneys also pointed out that there was “no disputing that the arrest of the appellants has turned out to be hitherto illegal, when they continued to strike a mortal blow to the sense of justice.
“It cannot be that a judge in Israel comes to terms on an ‘agreement’ with the prosecutor in advance before the discussion on extending the remand, but at the end of the day, the respondent will request the extension of the appellants’ arrest. This in contrary to the doctrine of estoppel (preventing a defendant from revising an initial position that provided benefit).”
Concluding the appeal, the attorneys said that their clients’ release was “mandatory in light of the severe contamination of the process regarding their arrest, in a way that can no longer be rectified other than by their release.
“The court is asked to accept the appeal, annul the decision by the Magistrates' Court and to instruct for the release of the appellants to an alternative arrest,” it said.
Judge Alaa Masarwa, who replaced Poznanski-Katz amid the controversy, dashed their hopes on Monday evening by refusing to acquiesce to their demands, despite the legal misconduct that had come to light.
“At the end of the day, even if there were flaws in the legal process, it is for the court to determine whether or not to release them under differing arrest conditions. At the moment, it isn’t possible,” he said.
The judge explained that after the publication of the text correspondence between Poznanski-Katz and Shacham-Shavit, the suspects’ defense attorneys filed for their release citing prior coordination. Kamir submitted a request that the matter be re-examined for similar reasons.
“In light of the extenuating circumstances, I examined for myself the evidence, I studied all of it, including the material that was submitted to the courts and other materials,” Judge Masarwa said.
“Moreover, I addressed questions in writing to representatives of the investigative unit. There are many investigative materials involving many suspicions of things that were done by the senior officials.”
It is difficult, he added “to diminish the severity of the case. Reasonable suspicion arose before the current wave of arrests.”
Masarwa also emphasized that it could be confidently said that the suspicion against those involved was strengthened over time.
“As is known, in cases of these types there is suspicion of disruptions (to the legal process—ed.) The suspects who remained under arrest are central figures and are at the heart of the case.”
The judge also addressed the claims made by Hefetz about the conditions of his arrest.
“I’m not ignoring the suspicious claims about the conditions of the difficult remand. However, it is public interest vs the truth,” the judge reasoned, adding that the release of the suspects may harm the investigation.
“As for the just claim by the defense after the correspondence with the judge was exposed in which she was given prior requests, I will says that even if I address its gravity, I would still stand behind the interests of the public in light of the severity of the case and the abundance of evidence,” he insisted.
“The job of the court is to strike a balance between different interests and the exhaustive investigation and the curtailing of suspects’ rights. I have decided that the public interest has the upper hand.”
