Background
Arik Wade Ascherman, an Israeli human-rights activist, complained that masked settlers violently attacked him on April 7, 2021. He petitioned the High Court of Justice on February 13, 2025, challenging the Binyamin police’s handling of his complaint and its failure to undertake investigative steps he considered necessary. After the respondents agreed to conduct supplementary investigative measures and issue a new decision, the Court deleted the petition on August 7, 2025, while preserving Ascherman’s ability to pursue further proceedings after exhausting available remedies.
On February 26, 2026, Ascherman applied under section 6 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, arguing that the promised investigation had not been properly completed. The police reported unsuccessful efforts to obtain testimony from two people mentioned by another witness. Following a June 22 hearing and comments from the Court, the police took further steps. One witness was eventually interviewed but, approximately five and a half years after the incident, remembered little and could identify no other participants from the videos; efforts to identify and locate the second person failed. The police again closed the investigation for insufficient evidence.
Ascherman maintained his contempt application and sought transfer of the supplementary investigation to another police station, additional investigative measures, and costs. He argued that the police’s investigation, delay, and continued treatment of his complaint remained inadequate.
The Court’s Holding
The Court deleted the contempt application. It sharply criticized both the investigation and the time taken to complete it, observing that calling the investigation “superficial” would be generous and that it was unsurprising the investigation produced no results. Nevertheless, at the time of the decision, the Court could not conclude that the respondents had failed to comply with its August 7, 2025 judgment.
The earlier judgment had recorded an undertaking to try to exhaust a particular investigative step: obtaining testimony from the two people mentioned by another witness. Although the police’s initial action raised substantial difficulty in light of that undertaking, the respondents performed additional measures after the Court’s comments. In those circumstances, the Court found that the contempt application had run its course. Ascherman’s requests for transfer of the investigation and further investigative directions exceeded the procedural framework before the Court and could not be granted there.
Because of the respondents’ handling of the matter, the Court awarded Ascherman NIS 10,000 in costs against Israel Police. The Court did not decide the broader question whether the Contempt of Court Ordinance applies to state authorities.
Key Takeaways
- The Court struck the contempt application after finding, on the circumstances then before it, that the respondents had carried out the additional efforts contemplated by the earlier judgment.
- The ruling did not resolve whether contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Court Ordinance are available against state authorities.
- Despite striking the application, the Court strongly criticized the superficial and protracted police investigation and ordered Israel Police to pay NIS 10,000 in costs.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that later investigative action may bring a case-specific contempt application to an end even when the Court remains deeply dissatisfied with the underlying investigation. It also shows the importance of the precise undertaking incorporated into the earlier judgment: the Court assessed compliance with that undertaking, not the adequacy of every aspect of the investigation.
The ruling should not be read as establishing a general doctrine governing contempt proceedings against Israeli state authorities. That foundational issue was expressly left unresolved, while any challenge to the police’s renewed closure decision remained subject to the appropriate review process.