A public dispute broke out on Wednesday between Israel Police and the State Attorney’s Office after police said two tort rulings had been issued against the force and against officers and commanders over the handling of protests – in cases in which the defendants were not represented by the prosecution.
In a sharply worded statement, police accused the State Attorney’s Office of abandoning officers who had acted on behalf of the state in complex operational circumstances, and said that failure had affected the outcome of the cases.
“Unfortunately, we are witnessing the prosecution withdraw its hand from representing officers and leave them to face legal proceedings alone, after they acted in the name of the state and by virtue of their role,” police said.
The force added that the officers had been left without proper legal protection in court “without any logical reason,” in a move it said influenced the rulings and left no possibility of appeal.
Police Commissioner Daniel Levi said he fully backed the officers involved and argued that the state has both a moral and legal duty to assist and defend police personnel sent to carry out missions in its name.
Levi said the situation now required the organization to secure outside representation by leading private attorneys, independently of any other authority, in order to defend its officers and fighters.
The police statement references a default judgment in a civil claim filed against the Israel Police, the Israel Prison Service, and two officers. In the ruling, the court said that after the defendants failed to file a statement of defense despite extensions, and so it was judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
The State Attorney’s Office later pushed back forcefully, rejecting the police account and insisting it had not refused to represent the force.
“The prosecution routinely represents Israel Police officers and acts to protect them within the framework of their duties, while preserving its obligation to act in accordance with the law, professional discretion, and the proper management of legal proceedings,” it said.
According to the prosecution, the problem was not a refusal to appear, but a substantive dispute over the content of the defense that was to be filed.
“The facts are that the statement of defense was not filed because of substantive disagreements regarding its content, since the prosecution refused to file a statement of defense that did not faithfully reflect the events from a factual and legal standpoint,” it said.
Police rejected proposals amid prosecution’s warnings
The prosecution further said it had warned police more than once during the handling of the case about the risk that a judgment would be entered in the absence of a defense. It also said it had proposed various alternatives for resolving the proceedings with the plaintiffs, but that the police rejected those proposals.
The exchange laid bare an unusually public clash between two state bodies over responsibility for legal strategy in protest-related cases, with police framing the matter as institutional abandonment of officers and the prosecution presenting it as a professional refusal to submit a defense it believed did not accurately reflect the facts or law.
Source:
www.jpost.com
