Bill would remove Supreme Court chief’s power to decide which judges hear certain cases
Religious Zionism MK Rothman wants all Supreme Court panels determined by randomized computer allocation, as currently happens in all but the most sensitive hearings
Jeremy Sharon is The Times of Israel’s legal affairs and settlements reporter
Legislation being advanced by judicial overhaul proponent Religious Zionism MK Simcha Rothman would remove the authority of the Supreme Court president to determine which justices hear each case, and have all such judicial panels determined by an automatic, computerized system instead.
Rothman argued in the explanatory notes to his bill that the legislation is necessary since the outcome of an appeal or petition can allegedly be predetermined by the court president by choosing which judges sit on a certain panel, adding that the selection process must therefore be automated.
However, as the process currently stands, the overwhelming majority of judicial panels established for Supreme Court appeals and High Court petitions are already formed by random assignment via computer through the court secretariat, although the Supreme Court president can, and on occasion does, choose the individual judges for cases of particular importance.
The legislation is due to be brought before the Ministerial Committee for Legislation on Sunday to decide whether or not the government will back the bill once it comes to the Knesset for its preliminary reading.
The bill, if passed, would amend the Courts Law of 1984 and remove the clause authorizing the Supreme Court president to determine which judges preside over which cases.
Instead, the law would state that the composition of judicial panels will be determined in “a computerized way without human involvement.”
“The goal of this amendment is to cause High Court of Justice panels to be established independently, without human involvement,” wrote Rothman in the explanatory notes of the bill.
Rothman, who serves as the chairman of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, argued that the law is necessary “because sometimes determining the composition of the court… may determine the outcome of the hearing before it even begins.”
According to Dr. Guy Lurie, a researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute’s legal department, there are only a handful of cases every year where the Supreme Court president decides on who will sit on a judicial panel.
Such cases often involve matters of significant importance to the public, but even in such situations, the Supreme Court president does not handpick judges for the panel but rather decides that the most senior judges on the court will sit on the panel.
In the recent hearings over petitions against the government’s decision to fire Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, Supreme Court President Isaac Amit went this route, so that the three most senior judges on the court — himself, Deputy Supreme Court President Noam Sohlberg, and Judge Daphne Barak-Erez — heard the petitions.
In other circumstances, the Supreme Court president can also assign judges to a case based on the workloads facing the different judges at a certain time when a new case is brought to the court.
Lurie contended that the president’s ability to have the most senior judges on the court sit on crucial cases and his ability to manage the workload of the judges were important tools in managing the functioning of Israel’s top court.
The Times of Israel Community.