(all links are Hebrew, sorry again)
Yesterday was a shocking, terrible day, that would have shocked most people, if only it were brought in different circumstances, with a different person and with a different news desk.Ahmed Hatib, a Lawyer, (not the terrorist from the shooting in Jerusalem), was prohibited from meeting his clients, which are mostly security prisoners. The reason? secret documents brought to the attention of Hon. Judge Oded Mudrik as well as secret intelligence information.
Image cc-by-sa Skugga2shadow
In a “correct” state, this headline would have shocked the legal system, bring responses from the Chief of the Israeli Bar Association against this substantial damage to the right for Due Process and attorney client privileges. Also, some parliament members would have objected to illegal wiretapping to lawyers and deprivation of Due Process from security prisoners.
However in Israel, as in Israel, all this is minor. In the same moment that Judge Mudrik stated to the Lawyer that “I explained to the respondent that holding multiple series of meetings with a group of prisoners which is large raises a question mark regarding the quality of the legal service given in such a meeting“. This comment, of course, shows the real face of the legal system.
Judge Mudrik’s decision, (CR 93813/07 State v. Hatib) is a decision not only damaging Adv. Hatib’s freedom of practice and employment, as the court states, but also damages third parties – The lawyer’s clients. This public is entitle to attorney-client privilege and to the belief that anything that he may pass to the lawyer may not be used against him (see. for example, CR 4904/06 Kagansky v. State).
The basic right for any person to legal representation, the same Due Process that exists in the United States, is almost forgotten in our small state (See CA 5121/98 Yisasscharov v. Military Attorney). The same right every person has to know what his rights are is damaged; De facto, the Israeli Penal Authority deprive prisoners from legal consultation, that should be given even if financed by terror organisations or whilst the lawyer is committing security offences. (compare).
The Public’s trust in the legal system is based, amongst other things, on lawyers who enable citizens to know what their state is and how to deal with the law. Deprivation of the right from those standing behind bars to chose their lawyers is depriving a basic right, that is weighed to running a procedure against a person who is charged in violating a clandestine law. Only last week did Hon. Judge Shapira annul a verdict from 1999 since the defendant, a person with a speech impediment, was not given proper legal consultation. The Judge stated that:
Even though the court was aware that appellant was not able to express, and obviously cannot represent himself. In circumstances where a person cannot speak and express his position he should be considered mute, as meant in clause 15(a)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, even if medically he is not defined as such. Alternatively, this case resides under clause 15(b) to the Act since in these circumstances injustice may be caused, and one cannot expect a person who isn’t able to speak to ask for appointment of a lawyer. Therefore, under these circumstances, the appellant has the right to be represented. […] The right for legal representation is in fact a tool to ensure the existence of other rights, both in the criminal procedure and other procedures where a person’s rights are determined. The legal representation is required in order to ensure that tempering these rights, if done, shall not be done but after a due process of law. (CA 2514/07 Cohen v. Municipality of Haifa)
It is sad to discover that a week has passed from the day the courts acknowledged the right for representation to the day it ruled that no such right exists.