Background
Yuval Castelman was fatally shot after intervening in a terrorist attack at the Givat Shaul junction entrance to Jerusalem on November 30, 2023. After helping neutralize the attackers, he discarded his handgun, removed his coat, threw his identification in front of him, knelt, and raised his hands to show that he was not a terrorist. A reservist soldier nevertheless shot him. Castelman died later that day after treatment at Shaare Zedek Medical Center.
Police initially characterized the incident as a two-sided exchange of fire and released Castelman’s body for burial without an autopsy. After video of his final moments became public, authorities opened a criminal investigation, exhumed the body with the family’s consent, and performed an autopsy. The Department of Internal Police Investigations later examined whether Jerusalem District police personnel had obstructed justice in their handling of the initial investigation and the release of the body, but found no basis for a criminal investigation. The Attorney General rejected the family’s appeal, concluding that the evidence did not create a reasonable suspicion that any officer intended to obstruct the investigation or foresaw that foregoing an autopsy would almost certainly do so.
Castelman’s family petitioned the High Court of Justice, arguing that the Attorney General’s decision was extremely unreasonable. They alleged that the lead investigator’s later memoranda and communications suggested an effort to conceal his earlier errors, and that the internal examination omitted important investigative steps. They also sought access to the police report concerning its internal review of the matter.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously dismissed the petition. It held that law-enforcement authorities have especially broad discretion in deciding whether to open a criminal investigation and that judicial intervention is reserved for rare cases involving extreme unreasonableness or a material distortion. That restraint applies with particular force to a decision made by the Attorney General as head of the prosecution system.
The Court found that the internal police-investigations department conducted an extensive examination and that the Attorney General considered the relevant evidence and answered the family’s arguments in a detailed decision. This included material concerning the lead investigator’s post-decision memoranda, his conversations with medical and emergency personnel, and recordings of his conversations with the Castelman family. Given challenges to the investigator’s credibility, the Attorney General relied on external objective evidence rather than his account.
Although the record revealed numerous defects in the initial investigation—including inadequate contemporaneous documentation, poor communication with the family, failure to perform certain prescribed death-investigation procedures, and failure to obtain required prosecutorial approval before releasing the body—the Court held that those failures did not establish a reasonable suspicion of intentional obstruction of justice. It also declined to order disclosure of the police internal-review report in this proceeding, leaving the family free to challenge the nondisclosure through the appropriate legal avenue.
Key Takeaways
- Israeli courts will intervene in a decision not to open a criminal investigation only in rare cases of extreme unreasonableness or material distortion.
- Serious investigative and procedural failures do not by themselves establish the intent required for the offense of obstruction of justice.
- The Court concluded that the Attorney General had examined the family’s evidence, including conduct occurring after the body was released, and had reasonably found no basis for a criminal investigation.
Why It Matters
The ruling illustrates the narrow scope of judicial review over Israeli law-enforcement charging and investigative decisions, particularly when the challenged determination was made by the Attorney General after a detailed evidentiary review. A court will not substitute its own assessment merely because the underlying police conduct was deeply flawed.
At the same time, the Court sharply distinguished the absence of criminal suspicion from acceptable police practice. It described the initial handling of Castelman’s death as distressing and outrageous, honored his courage in saving lives, and emphasized that law-enforcement authorities should draw the necessary lessons to prevent similar failures.