The Jerusalem District Court has lifted the gag order that the state is seeking preliminary evidence from a foreign resident as part of the investigation into the new Prime Minister Ehud Olmert affair. The identity of the foreign resident is still under a gag order.
The Tel Aviv Magistrates Court today dismissed a request by the media to lift the gag order imposed on the investigation. Israel Police Superintendent Iris Barak of the National Fraud Unit opposed the lifting of the gag order, and not only on the grounds of investigative considerations. "Publication about the affair when there is no doubt with regard to its severity, right at this time - the eve of Memorial Day - will harm the public interest," she argued. "No person wants to hear about this today."
At the same time, the "New York Post" today published an article suggesting several details regarding the name and address of the foreign resident.
Although the issue involves evidence gathered for use in court against Olmert, if and when he is indicted, the Jerusalem District Court ruled, "There is nothing to indicate that an indictment will be filed against the respondents in the case, who are the prime minister and Shula Zaken. At issue is an investigation that began a few days ago, and the request is being sought under these circumstances."
The state's request to obtain preliminary evidence from a foreign resident, an extraordinary act, has not yet been approved. The Jerusalem District Court ruled that it would decide whether to hear the evidence behind closed doors or hold an open hearing at today's discussion.
Meanwhile, Shula Zaken, the former director of the Prime Minister's Bureau, was today questioned for the fourth time at the Police National Fraud unit's headquarters in Bat Yam. She claimed the right to remain silent at previous questionings, and she will presumable reiterate this right today. She is under house arrest through Friday.
According to the Criminal Code, any judge has the authority to approve the collection of preliminary evidence at the request of a litigant if the evidence is important to clarify guilt, and if there are reasonable grounds to assume that it will not be possible to gather this evidence during trial (if and when a trial is held). An example of such a situation is the gathering of evidence from a very sick person who might die, or a person residing overseas who cannot be compelled to come to Israel to give testimony in court, or if there is concern that the witness might be intimidated or promised benefits to prevent his giving truthful testimony in court.
Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes-online.com - on May 6, 2008
© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd. 2008