Unprofessional police conduct

The police above the law
Haaretz, December 25, 2006
By Ze'ev Segal

The massive police performance that was broadcast live on television at peak viewing time effectively labeled Roman Zadorov as the murderer of Katzrin teenager Tair Rada. This grossly and unnecessarily infringed on his human dignity and his right to due process. The care that the police took in formulating their statements did not soften the earlier "police label," even after Zadorov's confession and reenactment of the murder. Even if his guilt is proven in a court of law, that will not lessen the culpability of the police, who are responsible for the dignity of an individual under investigation at the stage when he enjoys the presumption of innocence.

The sub judice offence, which prohibits the publication of information that may prejudice a trial or its results, and which applies, inter alia, to the police, is problematic, and it is doubtful whether it should be on the books. But there is no doubt that human dignity must be preserved, one way or another. In any case, the very existence of this offence deprives the police, which enforces the law, of the right to break it.

Thus an interview given by Attorney General Menachem Mazuz to Channel 10's "London and Kirshenbaum" - an interview that has now been aired again on Channel 2, in which he analyzed the indictment against Haim Ramon a few days before a verdict was handed down - was improper. And more than a decade ago, in response to a petition submitted by Aryeh Deri against the prosecutor in his trial, Yehoshua Resnick, the High Court of Justice criticized the interview that the prosecutor gave the press, in which he praised the evidence collected.

The criminal code, as it was amended in 2002, limits the sub judice ban to criminal cases in which the publication of information involves an "almost certain" possibility of influencing the trial. A case is considered "pending" before the court from the moment an arrest warrant is requested. The Knesset expressed itself then in favor of keeping sub judice on the books, despite calls to abolish the law.

The State Prosecutor's Office has the power to enforce the law as it sees fit against journalists or others who make information public. Not using this power to prosecute does not ensure that this will also be the case in the future. In any case, in a country ruled by law, it is inconceivable for the police to be considered immune from the law.

Because of their power, the police need to exercise greater care at both lower and senior ranks. Poor judgment by the police can seriously impair an individual's dignity and privacy, as was the case with Zadorov and in the arrest of Benny Sela. The insufferable carelessness with which the police treat the rights of the individual is conspicuous in the matter of wiretapping, for which the police are authorized to request permission of the president of a district court in order to prevent or uncover a crime.

State Comptroller's reports reveal that police requests for wiretaps, sometimes even with the approval of the state prosecutor, are submitted without proper and serious consideration. The parliamentary committee of inquiry on wiretapping, headed by MK Menachem Ben-Sasson (Kadima), which is now at work was established following the unreasonable wiretapping in the Haim Ramon affair. Its necessity becomes even clearer when considered in light of the multiple facets of the need to protect a person's dignity even while he is under investigation, in the spirit of the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Freedom.

The police brass today can "defend themselves" only with the claim that in the past, too, their contempt for the rights of those under investigation was conspicuous. In 1984, for example, harsh criticism was leveled at a well-attended press conference at which senior police officers announced the arrest of Yona Avrushmi for the murder of Emil Grunzweig, a murder of which he was subsequently convicted.

The wave of publicity at that time - which, like today, stemmed from police sources - led to advancing the moment when the sub judice law takes effect: from the moment when an indictment is submitted, as used to be the case, to the moment when an arrest warrant is requested. But the lessons of the past have not been learned.

The police have also released information that was harmful and unnecessary in other cases that engendered public interest, such as the murder of a young woman, Hanit Kikos, from Ofakim. The public's outrage and its demand to discover the murderer in serious cases cannot justify impairing the basic right to due process, nor can it justify colorful media coverage of the immediate suspect while trampling his dignity underfoot - no matter what the crime of which he is suspected.