Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-02-15T11:33:36.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vox Populi Vox Judicis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Zev Lampe
Zev Lampe
Affiliation:
J.D. (Harvard); First Senior Deputy D.A. for Southern District of Israel.
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Cases
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , Winter 1994 , pp. 164 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 (1991) 46(iv) P.D. 807.

2 S.H. 1261 (1988) p. 184.

3 36 L.S.L 36.

4 See Cohen v. State of Israel (1989) 43(i) P.D. 673 (Bach), Lavan v. State of Israel (1989) 43(ii) P.D. 410 (Alon), Maman v. State of Israel (1989) 43(ii) P.D. 441 (Alon), State of Israel v. Yonah (1989) 43(ii) PJ). 452 (Bach), State of Israel v. Paloni (1989) 43(ii) P.D. 850 (Bach), Avidan v. State of Israel (1992) 46(i) P.D. 677 (Alon), Tartur v. State of Israel (1991) 45(v) P.D. 573 (Netanyahu), Swissa v. State of Israel (1991) 45(iii) P.D. 338 (Alon).

5 See sec. 38 of the Criminal Procedure Law (Consolidated Version), 1982, supra n. 3, at 44. The procedure for rehearing matters before a larger panel in the Supreme Court is limited to those matters heard intially before a panel of three justices. See sec. 30 of the Courts Law (Consolidated Version), 1984 (38 L.SJ. 271, at 279).

6 Goldin, supra n. 1, at 813.

7 ibid.

8 ibid.

9 ibid., at 814.

10 ibid.

11 Avidan v. State of Israel (1992) 46(i) P.D. 677; Tartur v. State of Israel (1991) 46(v) P.D. 573.

12 Avidan, at 691.

13 ibid., at 692.

14 Tartur v. State of Israel, supra n. 11, at 582.

15 ibid., at 582.

16 See supra n. 2. Unfortunately the question of the interpretation of the amendment's language has still not been settled. Since appeals against remand decisions are heard before a single judge, and there is no procedure for rehearing before a larger panel (see n. 5 above), the result has been continuing conflicting decisions.

17 The Federalist No. 81 (Cooke, , ed., 1961) p. 544.Google Scholar