Background
Avraham Hadi was charged with extortion by threats, threats, malicious damage, defacing real property, and obstruction of justice. The indictment alleged that, because of the conduct of certain bodies in the matter known as the “Sde Teiman affair,” he threw bricks at and spray-painted an inscription on media offices, threatened their employees, and also threw bricks at a Ministry of Justice building.
The Tel Aviv–Jaffa Magistrates’ Court ordered Hadi released to a therapeutic detention alternative under electronic monitoring. On the State’s appeal, the Tel Aviv–Jaffa District Court reversed that decision and ordered him detained until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. Hadi sought leave to appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Ofer Grosskopf denied leave to appeal. The Court reiterated that a “third-tier appeal”—Supreme Court review after the District Court has already heard an appeal—is granted sparingly, ordinarily only when the application raises a legal or public question extending beyond the parties’ individual dispute, or in exceptionally rare cases when justice requires review.
Hadi argued principally that he had been treated more harshly because of his ideological and political views than defendants in other cases who acted from different ideological motives. The Court held that this selective-enforcement argument did not warrant third-tier review. It noted the established evidentiary difficulty of examining selective enforcement at the detention stage, where factual inquiry is limited, particularly when the proposed comparison involves separate incidents or prosecutions.
The Court characterized Hadi’s remaining arguments as case-specific. It declined to disturb the District Court’s conclusions that the proposed therapeutic setting was unsuitable for electronic-monitoring detention and that the negative probation-service assessment deserved weight. The District Court’s ruling was well grounded in Hadi’s assessed dangerousness, the probation service’s unfavorable impression, the mismatch between him and the treatment offered, technical difficulties in accommodating an electronically monitored detainee at the facility, and his criminal record, including an activatable suspended prison sentence imposed in October 2024.
Key Takeaways
- Supreme Court review of a detention ruling already reviewed by a District Court is reserved for exceptional cases raising broader legal or public issues or compelling considerations of justice.
- Selective-enforcement claims are difficult to adjudicate during pretrial detention proceedings because the available evidentiary inquiry is limited, especially when comparisons involve different incidents.
- Fact-specific objections to a proposed treatment setting, electronic monitoring, and a probation-service assessment generally do not justify third-tier review.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the narrow route to Supreme Court review of intermediate detention rulings in Israel. An applicant must do more than dispute how lower courts assessed dangerousness, supervision, treatment suitability, or probation evidence.
It also confirms that allegations of selective enforcement may be particularly difficult to resolve at the detention stage when they depend on comparisons across separate prosecutions requiring a broader factual record.