Background
In December 2025, Israel’s Kan 11 aired journalist Omri Assenheim’s three-part interview with Eli Feldstein. Feldstein discussed his alleged involvement with Jonathan Urich in supplying classified information for publication by the German newspaper Bild. He also described a meeting with Tzachi Braverman, chief of staff in the Prime Minister’s Office, concerning the Bild investigation. Police subsequently opened an investigation into that meeting and questioned Braverman, Feldstein, and others under caution.
Urich and the police separately sought an order under section 43 of the Criminal Procedure (Arrest and Search) Ordinance requiring delivery of all raw interview materials. A magistrates’ court granted the applications, and the district court dismissed Assenheim’s appeal. On further review, the Supreme Court held in Assenheim’s case that only investigative and prosecutorial authorities may invoke section 43, expanded the qualified journalistic privilege to certain off-the-record information and raw journalistic materials, and found that the police had not satisfied the threshold requirements for obtaining the materials. It contemplated a new, narrowly tailored application, but the state reconsidered and withdrew its request.
After prosecutors notified Braverman that they intended, subject to a hearing, to indict him for fraud and breach of trust and obstruction of justice, he petitioned the High Court to compel the police and prosecutors to submit a focused application for portions of the interview materials concerning Feldstein’s account of the meeting. Urich joined in seeking relief and requested a broader set of materials. Assenheim separately undertook not to delete the raw materials, and a magistrates’ court gave that undertaking the force of an order.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the petition. Justice Alex Stein, joined by Justices David Mintz and Yael Wilner, held that decisions concerning criminal investigations and prosecutions are entrusted to law-enforcement authorities and are subject to judicial intervention only in exceptional cases involving extreme unreasonableness or another fundamental defect. The authorities’ decision not to make a renewed section 43 application fell within the range of reasonableness.
The state had reconsidered the matter after the Assenheim judgment through the State Attorney, the district attorney, senior police officials, and the investigative unit. It reasonably concluded that it could not formulate the required narrow and concrete request without knowing the content or character of the unaired materials. At the investigative stage, when the evidence remained undisclosed, the authorities also could not limit a request to materials containing contradictions or otherwise relevant information. The state was entitled to revise its earlier position in light of the intervening judgment.
The Court further held that Braverman and Urich were not foreclosed from seeking relevant materials. If criminal charges were filed, they could apply under section 108 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which would permit the trial court to assess the request in light of the full evidentiary record and hear the journalist’s objections. That later remedy adequately addressed their fair-process concerns. The Court made no order for costs.
Key Takeaways
- A court will compel Israeli investigative or prosecutorial authorities to take a particular investigative step only in exceptional circumstances, such as extreme unreasonableness or a fundamental defect.
- The authorities reasonably declined to seek raw interview materials because they could not frame a sufficiently narrow section 43 request without knowing what the unaired materials contained.
- A defendant may seek third-party materials under section 108 after indictment, allowing the criminal trial court to weigh relevance, privilege, privacy, and procedural fairness.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves prosecutorial discretion over whether and how to pursue evidence while reinforcing the protections for journalistic materials recognized in the earlier Assenheim ruling. A generalized belief that unaired footage may contain useful impeachment or exculpatory evidence does not require law-enforcement authorities to seek it through an investigative production order.
At the same time, the ruling leaves defendants a procedural avenue to request preserved third-party materials after indictment. That approach places disputes over relevance and journalistic privilege before the court managing the criminal case, with the benefit of a developed evidentiary record and participation by the holder of the materials.