The Ombudsman for Judges, retired Judge Asher Kola, has widely criticized the phenomenon of "public complainants who file complaints based solely on media publications, without independent investigation and without contacting the direct victims.".
In a decision published today (Thursday), dealing with a complaint about a judge who issued a decision during the Sabbath, the Commissioner notes that in this case four almost identical complaints were filed, which were also sent simultaneously to media outlets - and warns that phenomena of filing duplicate complaints and their early publication harm the due process.
In his decision, the Commissioner writes that the time has come to apply the principle of good faith to the filing of a complaint by a public complainant, taking into account the seriousness of the complaint and all of its circumstances.
The Commissioner also notes the necessity of two cumulative conditions for the Commission to examine a complaint: one, that it is indeed a matter of public importance that justifies investigating a complaint even if it was filed by a "public complainant," and the second, that the directly injured party was contacted in advance - assuming there is one - and his position on the merits of the complaint was presented, namely: is it his opinion and does he agree to the filing of the complaint.
In the circumstances of the complaint against the judge, the Commissioner was only required to consider one complaint, which was accompanied by the position of the directly injured party, and dismissed the remaining complaints outright.
The complaint claims that the judge's signing of the decision during the Sabbath constitutes a violation of the sanctity of the Sabbath. Attached to the commission's request was the position of a lawyer who was involved in the case and who observes the Sabbath. According to him, during reserve service he was forced to be available by phone, and when he received an alert from the 'Net Mishpat' system on the Sabbath and opened the device, thinking that it was an operational matter, he discovered that it was a technical decision made by the judge.
He described a deep sense of pain and a violation of his religious feelings, but clarified that he had no personal grievance against the judge and was mainly seeking lessons learned.
In the judge's response to the commission, it was stated that he does not observe Shabbat and sometimes works on Shabbat due to his heavy workload.
He said the decision was technical and made without considering the fact that Shabbat was not yet over. He expressed regret that the lawyer received a notice on Shabbat, and suggested a systemic solution that would prevent the automatic sending of non-urgent decisions during Shabbat.
The Commissioner ruled that while the judge should have anticipated the possibility that Sabbath-observant lawyers would receive such notifications, he accepted the explanation that this was an unintentional and careless mistake.
In conclusion, the Commissioner reiterated the importance of observing the Sabbath in the judicial system and the principle that non-essential decisions should not be made during the Sabbath. However, in the circumstances of the case – and considering that the judge apologized, recognized the importance of the matter, did not dispute the principle itself and acted out of error and not out of disrespect – It was determined that there was no justification for accepting the complaint. The Commissioner was content with clarifying the appropriate norm and recommended to the Director of Courts to once again clarify the instructions for judges not to sign decisions on Shabbat, except in necessary cases.
Another decision published today deals with a complaint regarding holding a political conference at a judge's home.
This complaint was also based on an advertisement on one of the television channels. At the end of the investigation, the Commissioner accepted the judge's statement that it was not a political event at all, that it had no political connotations, and that no political figure was present at the meeting.
However, in the response of the judiciary to an inquiry made to them regarding the matter, it was not claimed that it was not a political event, but only that the judge was unaware of the existence of the event that took place in her home.
Commissioner Kola accepted the judge's response and decided to dismiss the complaint, but noted in his decision, as a sign from now on - a political conference in a judge's home is not befitting the judge's status and it is generally better not to hold political conferences in a judge's home, even if the judge did not attend the conference or organize it.
