Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:33:05.337Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can Political Agitation in the Dock Be Stifled on the Ground of State Privilege?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

S. Ginossar
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 9 , Issue 3 , July 1974 , pp. 437 - 439
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1974

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 An English translation of the entire enactment appears in 2 L.S.I. (N.V.) at p. 198. A series of provisions on privilege had been added to the Ordinance in 1968 (22 L.S.I. 222) and now forms Chap. III of the New Version. For an analysis of sec. 44 as originally drafted, see Harnon, E., “Evidence Excluded by State Interest” (1968) 3 Is.L.R. 387, 407Google Scholaret seq. See also Livneh, , Note: “The Law of Evidence (Amendment) Law, 1968” (1970) 5 Is.L.R. 268 at 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 The provision also applies to matters affecting the security of the State, in which case the certificate is to be issued by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Defence.

3 That is to say, the first since 1968, when the special remedy was created (cf. supra n. 1). The number of cases where State privilege was invoked, which had been quite large in the fifties, had already declined in the early sixties.

4 Such as the apology of “murder for a grievance” (R. v. Dunn and Sullivan, 17 Cr.A.R. 12 quoted in the decision).