Last update - 00:00 06/03/2007
Mazuz approves release of information from Judicial Appointments Committee
By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz Correspondent
The Judicial Appointments Committee ought to publish data on the education and experience of candidates for judgeships, according to a legal opinion prepared by Attorney General Menachem Mazuz.
The opinion, authored by attorney Moshe Dayan of the Justice Ministry and subsequently approved by Mazuz, was submitted last week to the committee chairman, Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann. It recommended that the committee set criteria for what data about candidates should be published, and how.
It also applauded the committee's recent decision to prepare minutes of its hearings' "main points." Citing the general principle of freedom of information and the public's right to know, the opinion noted: "Public interest in the committee's activities and decisions is clear and substantial."
However, it continued, some information about candidates should not be published - for instance, personal information from the candidates' applications, such as health problems or incidents from their past, as publication of such data might deter good candidates from applying. Reviews submitted by people who have worked with the candidate should also be confidential, it said, because these are supplied on the assumption that, except for committee members, no one, including the candidates themselves, will see them.
At last week's committee session, Friedmann requested information about the candidates' education and even asked to see their transcripts. But Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch, another committee member, objected, saying there was no reason to examine the academic transcripts of sitting judges up for promotion. Friedmann plans to raise the issue again at tomorrow's session.
All three Supreme Court justices on the committee are upset about Friedmann's idea of requesting university transcripts from judges up for promotion. It is reasonable to demand transcripts from first-time candidates, they argued, but for a sitting judge, more recent information about his performance is more relevant, and there is no reason to delve into his academic past. A person's grades in college, they added, are not accurate predictors of whether he will make a good judge.
In other news, Friedmann told the Ministerial Legislation Committee on Sunday that his ministry will consider appointing special prosecutors to deal with criminal proceedings against elected officials. However, such special prosecutors would apparently not follow the American model.
Currently, decisions on criminal proceedings against elected officials are made by Mazuz.
The attorney general has not ruled out the idea, believing that his dual role - he is the government's legal adviser as well as head of the prosecution - could result in his having conflicts of interest in certain cases. He therefore intends to ask a senior Justice Ministry staffer to study the proposal.
In 2004, Haaretz revealed that Mazuz was considering a variant of this idea: transferring probes of public officials to an investigating judge, who would decide on the conduct of the police investigation and on whether to indict. Mazuz apparently believes that a special prosecutor would not differ greatly from an investigating judge.