Supreme Court Justices accepted the petition submitted by the Association for Civil Rights (ACRI) and issued a majority ruling stating that a defendant must be allowed access to his/her personal file that is compiled throughout the period of his/her interrogation, but was closed for lack of evidence. The ruling was issued on 30 July 2006 in response to a petition submitted by ACRI in the name of Avraham Fried (Farizi) against the Israel Police and the Jerusalem District Attorney’‘s Office to demand that he be allowed to examine the criminal investigative file that was compiled during his interrogation, but which was closed for lack of evidence. Mr. Farizi required access to the file in order to bring about a change in the officially recorded reason for the closing of his file and in order to affect a change in the regulations governing the right to access such a file. The petition was submitted in 2002 by Attorney Gideon Koren and Uri Schwarz from the Ben-Zvi Koren law firm, in the name of ACRI.
Justice Yonatan Adiel notes in the written majority opinion – endorsed by the President of the Supreme Court – that according to claims made by the state, the disclosure of information contained within an investigative file is liable to result in a potential violation of an individual’‘s right to privacy. This, in turn, raises concerns that the public interest will be undermined by an impingement of the ongoing cooperation between the public and the police. However, if one weighs this fear against the right of an individual to access information that he/she requires to realize his/her right to fight for changes in the officially recorded reason for closing a particular file, the majority of justices are of the opinion that the right of the individual is the stronger claim. The right of the interrogatee to be granted access to this information, which he/she requires to defend their good name by bringing about a change in the stated reason for closing their personal file, Justice Adiel explains, overrides public interest. This is because it is unlikely, in light of the circumstances of this particular case that an individual’‘s realization of his/her right would result in a substantive undermining of the public interest. Justice Edmond Levy expressed a minority opinion and stated that one should not intervene in state decisions, and that Mr. Farid should not be allowed to see his personal investigative file.
Abraham Farid heads an educational non-profit organization called “Bamot.” In 1997 an official police complaint was filed against him by a person with whom Mr, Farid had no prior acquaintance which resulted in the opening of a lengthy investigation against him for crimes of fraud. Mr. Farid consistently claimed that the suspicions directed against him were unfounded, and were filed solely as a means of revenge by a number of people against whom he had taken steps to expose their involvement in acts of corruption. The personal investigative file was transferred a number of times from the police to the District Attorney’‘s Office with a recommendation that it be closed, but it was returned again and again to the police to allow for the compilation of the full complement of investigative material. Abraham Farid was interrogated a number of times by the police, over a period of four years, and he cooperated fully with his interrogators. In 2001 Mr. Farid appealed to the Attorney General and raised questions about the way the investigation was being handled, and why it had dragged on for so many years. In his letter, Mr. Farid requested that he be indicted if there did in fact exist any evidence against him; conversely, if there was no such evidence, Mr. Farid requested that the file be closed for lack of culpability. It took a number of months before he received a response, which stated that the Jerusalem District Attorney’‘s Office had decided to close the case against him, however it further noted that the file was being closed due to a lack of sufficient evidence.
When Mr. Farid was notified of this he turned to the District Attorney’‘s Office to request that he be allowed to view the investigative file that had been compiled over a period of four years, and which had caused him such severe anguish. This appeal arose as a result of his desire to repeal the officially recorded reason for the closure of his file, and to investigate the possibility of claiming compensation from those responsible for compiling it. In response to this appeal Mr. Farid was told that the District Attorney’‘s Office would not allow him to view the file, which had been closed due to a lack of sufficient evidence. Substantive reasons for this decision were not given, even after additional appeals to the District Attorney’‘s Office and to the Attorney General. However, Mr. Farid did receive a short non-committal response, after several months, which stated that rejection of his appeal was designated to ensure the integrity of the police force’‘s work, the maintenance of public faith in the police, and to prevent the misuse of information.
The petition claims that the instructions issued by the Attorney General regarding the right to access an investigative file are extremely unreasonable and disproportionate. This is a result of the excessive weight that is placed on the protection of the interests of the police and the District Attorney’‘s Office, which undermines the protection of the rights of private citizens, primarily the right to access information and the right to protection from slander. The protection of these rights will be possible only if the interrogee is allowed to view her/his personal file as a means of accessing the necessary information contained within to appeal the stated purpose for its closure. The closing of a file for lack of sufficient evidence does not cleanse the individual of the stain to his/her character and good name, which is the case when a file is closed for lack of culpability.
As previously stated, the majority of justices accepted the principled claim, and ruled that Mr. Farid should be allowed to view the investigative file compiled against him.
last updated : 17/10/06
