The Judicial Appointments Committee did only part of its job Sunday: It decided to appoint only one new Supreme Court justice, rather than filling all five vacancies on the bench. But the decision to appoint a private-sector lawyer, Hanan Melcer, breached the wall surrounding the highest court, to which hitherto only district court judges, attorneys general, state prosecutors and a few professors have been appointed.

The appointment of a private-sector lawyer will add a new, practical viewpoint to the court, whose 10 other justices are mainly former district court judges, alongside a former attorney general and a former state prosecutor. The court, which has now gained a lawyer specializing in civil and commercial law, should also be enriched soon with another private-sector attorney specializing in criminal law - someone familiar with the twistings and turnings of the wheels of justice from "the other side of the fence": the defense.

Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann's plan to increase the number of Supreme Court justices to 17 was discussed at Sunday's meeting of the appointments committee. The current complement of 15, an increase of two over the previous level, was set by the Knesset a few years ago.

	Advertisement

The decision to limit the number of Supreme Court justices was meant to underscore the uniqueness and supremacy of the highest instance. The supreme courts of the United States, England and Canada have seven or nine justices. This enables a great deal of dialogue among the justices as well as the handing down of consensus rulings, and prevents a situation in which the seat of justice becomes merely the seat of the judges, in which "there are as many opinions as there are judges," as the late justice Moshe Silberg said with regard to Supreme Court rulings.

In Israel, the situation is different: The Supreme Court is not just a supreme court that decides for itself which cases to hear, but also an appellate court to which people have a right of appeal in many civil and criminal cases. As a result, the court is bowing under the weight of its unreasonable workload, which causes delays of justice even in matters that require a rapid decision.

Israel's supreme court issues more than 1,000 reasoned, detailed decisions a year, compared with about 80 a year by its American counterpart. Therefore, a real reform is needed: the establishment of appellate courts - whether national or regional - that would hear appeals of district court rulings, while the Supreme Court would hear only cases that involve serious issues of principle. The latter would also retain its role as the High Court of Justice, which sits as a court of first and last instance, but only on issues of extreme constitutional or administrative importance.

As long as this "big reform," which the justice minister ought to begin discussing, is not implemented, serious thought should be given to the "small reform" of adding more Supreme Court justices. Meanwhile, the Judicial Appointments Committee must decide on the appointment of additional justices with no further delay to bring the existing bench up to full strength.