Background
Ahmad Ziyoud was charged in the Haifa Traffic Court with driving an off-road vehicle on a road for a purpose other than crossing it, contrary to Regulation 39E(a) of the Traffic Regulations, 1961. At the September 14, 2026 arraignment, the court received notice that attorney Makhlouf Jubran had transferred the representation to attorney Jaber Jabrin. After hearing a comment from the court, Jabrin requested a short adjournment so that Jubran could appear, and the arraignment was postponed to September 17.
Jubran then sought another postponement because he had hearings in other cases. The Traffic Court denied the request, stating that counsel had “taken the law into his own hands and chosen to leave the courtroom,” and warned that Ziyoud could be tried in absentia if he failed to appear. At the September 17 hearing, Jubran disputed that characterization, sought correction of the September 14 transcript to include comments allegedly made by the judge, and asked the court to amend its September 15 decision. The court directed the State and Jabrin to respond to the transcript-correction request within 14 days.
Before entering a plea, Ziyoud sought the judge’s disqualification. The Traffic Court denied the motion because no ground for recusal had been shown and the judge had expressed no view on the merits. On appeal, Ziyoud alleged that the judge had made offensive remarks about counsel outside counsel’s presence, intentionally omitted those remarks from the transcript, and said that he intended to “teach the lawyers a lesson” through Jubran. Ziyoud argued that the judge might use the prosecution to settle a score with his attorney.
The Court’s Holding
Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit dismissed the appeal. The disqualification request made in the Traffic Court had been sparse and conclusory. Only on appeal did Ziyoud identify the alleged remarks and contend that the judge intended to punish him because of hostility toward his attorney. Because those specific allegations had not been presented below, the trial judge had no opportunity to address them.
The Court held that a disqualification appeal cannot serve as a “second chance” to expand a conclusory recusal motion with grounds not raised before the original judge. That procedural failure was sufficient to reject the new allegations. The Court further explained that a disqualification motion is not a substitute for a motion to correct the hearing transcript. Because the transcript-correction request remained pending, the Traffic Court should be allowed to complete its examination of the disputed remarks. The Court also denied Ziyoud’s accompanying request to stay the proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking judicial disqualification must present the complete and specific grounds to the judge whose recusal is requested.
- A recusal appeal may not be used to introduce factual allegations and theories that were omitted from a conclusory motion below.
- Disputes over allegedly omitted courtroom remarks should ordinarily be resolved through the procedure for correcting the hearing transcript, not through a disqualification motion.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the procedural discipline required in Israeli judicial-disqualification proceedings. Even serious allegations suggesting hostility toward counsel generally will not be considered for the first time on appeal when the trial judge was not given an opportunity to respond.
It also distinguishes between two remedies with different functions: transcript correction establishes what occurred in court, while disqualification addresses a real concern of judicial bias. Where the factual record remains disputed and a correction motion is pending, the trial court should ordinarily complete that process before the allegations can support further relief.