· Criminal law · Translated from the Hebrew original
Before the right to a hearing was anchored in law, a hearing was available only to public officials, because of their standing and the possible effects of the proceedings, with all that this implies. Over the years, with the understanding that an indictment can harm not only public officials, the legislature acted to allow a hearing subject to exceptions in the law. In addition, guidelines on applying the right to a hearing were issued by the Attorney General.
At the end of the investigation by the investigating authority, the investigation file is transferred to the prosecution authorities for review and for their decision on the fate of the case.
Notice of the hearing is sent to the suspect when the offence is a felony (imprisonment of more than three years). It is sent by registered mail to the address known to the prosecution authority and, by law, is deemed to have been served properly even without a delivery confirmation. After receiving the notice, the suspect may approach the authority from which he received it within 30 days. In the application the suspect sets out why, in his view, an indictment should not be filed in his case.
In certain cases the competent official (the District Attorney or the head of a prosecution unit) may deny the right to a hearing.
Under the law, the investigation material is available to the defendant only after the indictment is filed. The question therefore arises how the suspect, before becoming a defendant, can prepare as well as possible for the hearing in his case, when under the law he is not entitled to receive the investigation material. Guiding principles on this were set in case law and in the Attorney General's guidelines. It was held that, before the hearing, where the right cannot reasonably be exercised, the suspect will be allowed to inspect the investigation material to an extent determined at the prosecution's discretion, after weighing several interests, among them harm to others involved and interference with trial preparations.
At the hearing, in addition to addressing the evidence in his possession (if any), the suspect may present to the prosecution representative his personal circumstances (family, state of health, employment situation, contribution to the community, loss of a stable job, loss of a professional licence, harm to the integrity of the family unit and the like).
Failure to exercise the right to a hearing as the law requires has in many cases led to the cancellation of an indictment (there is no bar to filing an indictment after a hearing is held). However, it is important to note that in other cases the prosecution was given an opportunity to cure the defect by holding a hearing after the fact, that is, by postponing the hearing on the response to the charges and holding a hearing while the indictment is pending in court.
It is also important to note that, on the one hand, the hearing can lead to the suspect not being put on trial and can even affect the ground on which the investigation file is closed in the suspect's favour. On the other hand, disclosing substantive information, such as a line of defence, or "supplying" evidence that contributes to a conviction (as noted, not all the evidence is in the suspect's hands) which the prosecution did not have on the eve of the hearing, may lead to further investigation and later to the filing of the indictment.
In summary, the hearing procedure is essential in certain circumstances. However, the circumstances are examined case by case. Early, professional preparation significantly increases the chances of obtaining the best result from the procedure in the particular circumstances of the case.
The content above is general and presented for information only. It does not constitute legal recommendation or legal advice or opinion. Do not rely on it; use of this content is not a substitute for personal, case-specific legal advice.