The High Court of Justice Sunday struck down a 30-year-old law which had effectively delayed or prevented some defendants from testifying, and had led to others being set free on a technicality.

The law, known as the "Kinsey Law," said that defendants could give testimony in a case involving a crime for which they were also indicted, until after their own case had been tried.

The Kinsey Law was formulated so that witnesses would not alter testimony in an effort to diminish their role in a crime, and to keep them from incriminating themselves in court.

	Advertisement

The law came into question during the trial of three suspects allegedly involved in the murder of Shaked Shalhov from Ashdod.

The suspects in the murder were arrested after the investigation of Yaron Senkar, but because of the lengthening of Senkar's trial, the prosecutor couldn't bring him to testify, and there was a fear that the defendants would be released because of the Kinsey law.

Fearing this result, the prosecution presented a petition to the Supreme Court ten months ago, and requested they repeal the Kinsey law. The Public Prosecutor and the national bar association both signed the petition, in large part because of the fear that the suspects in the murder of Shalhov would be set free because of the loophole.

In the verdict, all judges agreed there is a need to repeal or reform the law, since it is no longer valid or suitable for today's legal reality.

"This law today is a stumbling block preventing a fluid, active judicial process," said Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch in the verdict.

There were some disagreements on the part of the justices. Justice Edmond Levy felt that there was a need to repeal the law absolutely and to disallow it from delaying further trials. Judge Ayala Procaccia, argued that the repeal should be selective, and allow for the law to be used in "special cases" only.

Chief Justice Beinisch ruled that the law will be repealed, but the court would be allowed to wait for the end of the trial to gather testimony from a defendant, in cases where there are extreme and unusual circumstances that would call for a delay.