Spike in justified complaints against prosecution - watchdog
Rozen also hammers favorable treatment given to police
By YONAH JEREMY BOBCourtroom 317, the scene of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trial(photo credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/THE JERUSALEM POST)Justice Ministry oversight “czar” Judge (ret.) David Rozen’s annual report on Monday flagged a jump in complaints against prosecutors found to be valid.In 2019, there were 633 complaints filed against prosecutors, up from 511 in 2018, he said.But what was more significant was a jump from 79 complaints being found to be valid in 2018 to 96 deemed justified in 2019.Further, in 2017, only 41 complaints were found to be valid, which presents the 2019 jump to 96 valid complaints as a clear and significant increasing trend.The report was issued one day after Rozen slammed the Police Investigations Department (PID) for giving favorable treatment to police who were probed, compared with regular citizens.Whereas a stain remains on the record of a regular citizen if a probe is closed due to insufficient evidence or a lack of public interest, in such cases, a police official’s record is wiped clean, he said.Rozen recommended changing this policy so that police, especially if there is a case involving parallel charges against a police officer and a regular citizen, would be treated the same as everyone else.The police responded that the issue was extensively debated in 2009, and eventually the current balance was set to acknowledge the difficult and unique position police officers are put in regarding needing to use physical force to enforce the law.Rozen rejected this rationale, noting that many defense lawyers already feel that regular citizens do not get a fair shake as it is when they allege misconduct by a police officer during some kind of mutual altercation.Moreover, he said, “it is very doubtful that we can come to peace” with the current imbalance.
The PID should take a harsher stance toward police officers accused of obstruction of justice or evidence tampering, Rozen suggested.Globally, the increased complaints and justified complaints against prosecutors were the result of the public getting better acquainted with his office’s work as well as positive cooperation between the oversight office and the state prosecution, he said.Generally, oversight has led to making the prosecutorial process more equal, consistent and transparent, the report said.A statement about the report highlighted the oversight czar’s contribution to pressing for law enforcement to improve the speed at which it updates and cleans out individuals’ criminal records.In one specific case, the report said Rozen’s intervention had led to a demotion of a senior police prosecutor who had willfully concealed evidence from a defendant and the courts.A different case led to a prosecutor being demoted for making false declarations to a court in an effort to keep a detainee behind bars, the report said.Another issue the report criticized was traffic prosecutors’ practice of withholding evidence due to defendants until the day of their proceeding, effectively denying them a fair opportunity to prepare for and attack the evidence.The report recommended setting benchmarks, deadlines and a set prosecution official who would be responsible for making sure appeals of prosecution decisions and requests for the police to perform supplementary investigatory activities would not drag on too long.In addition, oversight decisions had come at lightning speed compared with most of the legal establishment, with 89% of complaints received in 2019 decided before the end of the year and the average decision-making time coming in at a mere 39 days, the report said.Justice Minister Avi Nissenkorn said: “Along with defending the system of the rule of law and the independence of the gatekeepers, I am always driving toward improving the efficiency of these systems… oversight is an important tool... when used seriously, professionally and without bias.”Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit praised Rozen for striking the balance between criticizing the prosecution on substantive issues, but maintaining a tone and focus of preserving law enforcement’s independence from improper influences.
