Israel: The Supreme Court’s New, Cautious Exclusionary Rule
Although Jewish law has its own ancient roots, modern Israel has been heavily influenced by the English Common Law and its approach to the exclusion of unlawfully gathered evidence has very definitely been cautious, as is the case in England and Wales and many other countries in the English Commonwealth, such as Australia and New Zealand. In fact, courts had refused to suppress illegally gathered evidence which was relevant to guilt until the landmark decision of the Israeli Supreme Court in the case of Isaacharov in 2006. This Chapter discusses that case, where the evidence of guilt was based a confession of guilt by a soldier in violation of the right to counsel, in great detail and discusses the weaknesses and strengths of the Israeli Supreme Court decision and the prospects for development of the Israeli approach to exclusion of illegally gathered evidence in the future.
KeywordsHuman Dignity Criminal Procedure Defense Attorney Fair Trial Exclusionary Rule
- Harnon, E. 1999. The impact of the basic law: Human dignity and liberty on the law of criminal procedure and evidence. Israel Law Review 33: 678–719.Google Scholar
- Jarjura, R. 1984. The excessive rights of the Israel police regarding detainment of suspects and meetings with attorneys. Hapraklit 36: 92–96.Google Scholar
- Kedmi, J. 1999. On evidence, vol. 1. Tel Aviv: Dyunon Publishing.Google Scholar