The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

The court ruled: Members of the Netanyahu family will not be required to undergo a psychiatric examination | Israel Today

2022-02-09T07:47:28.573Z


The opposition leader and his family filed a defamation suit against the former prime minister, who called them "mentally ill" • The court ordered the Netanyahu family to answer Olmert's questions, which do not relate to their mental state


The Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court today (Wednesday) rejected the request of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to order opposition leader Netanyahu and his wife Sarah and son Yair to be examined by a psychiatrist.

All this, as part of the lawsuit filed by members of the Netanyahu family against Olmert after calling them "mentally ill."

The court ordered Olmert to pay the application in the amount of NIS 7,500.

Olmert demanded that Benjamin Netanyahu, Sarah Netanyahu and Yair Netanyahu hand over medical records in the field of mental health, sign a waiver of medical confidentiality and, as stated, be examined by a psychiatrist on his behalf for an opinion in the prosecution.

However, members of the Netanyahu family were required to answer the questions in a questionnaire sent to them, which did not relate to their mental state and were relevant to the procedure.

As stated, members of the Netanyahu family filed a lawsuit against Olmert under the Prohibition of Defamation Law, after in an interview with the Democrat TV website he attributed to them a mental illness that is not rehabilitable.

In the defense brief submitted by Olmert, he claimed that what he said in the interview was true, and demanded that the plaintiffs disclose medical records documenting their mental condition, and answer questionnaires regarding mental health treatments they had undergone, he claimed.

The plaintiffs objected to the demand, arguing that it was intended to intimidate them, and prevent them from continuing to conduct the prosecution.

Olmert arrives at the hearing of the defamation lawsuit filed against him by members of the Netanyahu family, archive, Photo: Dana Kopel

The court ruled that where the publication included a general, unfocused statement that did not address a specific incident, a situation where a document disclosure requirement would become a fishing trip intended to try and locate evidence that could prove the truth of the publication in retrospect should embarrass the plaintiff. , And deter him from continuing to pursue the lawsuit.

In order to prevent such a fishing trip, it must be stipulated that a condition for the disclosure of the requested documents is the presentation of evidence that can lift the burden - even the initial one - for the existence of some factual basis for the statements.

Only then, and as long as it turns out that these are not statements that were aired into the air without anything behind them, will it be possible to consider the obligation to disclose confidential documents concerning the medical or mental condition of the plaintiffs.

The court ruled that the rejection of the request mainly does not impair Olmert's ability to prove the "I spoke the truth" claim he made, since Olmert should have alternative evidence, the existence of which he stated both in the first body of the publication and in his testimony in court.

Were we wrong?

Fixed!

If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us

Source: israelhayom

All news articles on 2022-02-09

You may like

News/Politics 2024-02-25T12:12:58.430Z

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.