Adv. Aviad Lenchner, a criminal justice expert, does not have high hopes for the hearing and sees it as an empty move or even one that helps the prosecution prepare better for the indictment in the face of defense counsel's statements.
"People hear the term 'pre-indictment hearing' and are confident that this is a discussion between the parties and there is a sincere and genuine purpose in reaching the insights," says Adv. Lenchner, who notes that "the source of the proceeding is the law's provisions requiring the prosecutor to face a hearing. . Reality shows that the prosecution was not really happy to reach out with an open heart and a desire to hear. "
So what actually happens in this procedure? "Usually there is no discourse. The prosecutors sit, hear the prosecutor's arguments and mostly write and do not talk much. Most hearings end with an indictment. The prosecution is taking advantage of the fact that it does not have to give feedback to your claims as a lawyer nor feedback on what it thinks about the claims. "
In his words, Adv. Lenchner finds support for things attributed to Attorney Liat Ben Ari, the prosecutor in the Netanyahu case, saying her departure for a private vacation on such dramatic days is not critical since "it is all written and she will read the allegations afterwards." "If you have a position you will confront. It is not a matter of 'everything is written'."
"The prosecutor's office has to listen and not respond. What often happens is defense attorneys expose their defense arguments at the hearing and then see the indictment amendments to the prosecutor's office as stated in the hearing. In fact, defense attorneys become a sort of" quality control "of the indictment. The indictment ignores the mines that defense attorneys voted at the hearing. "
According to Lanchner in such a reality, there are cases where the recommendation is to forgo the hearing. He says of one of the cases still underway in court: "In one case, the prosecutor's office heard that the hearing was important to her precisely because my client was the main suspect in the case. I realized that was the reason and wanted to disclose my allegations and gave up. She would file her wrongful indictment and look in court. To say that if I disclosed my allegations they would have changed the indictment according to my allegations, and now they are eating some straw in court. "
And what about the prime minister's files? Was he right to give up the procedure too? "Every case on the merits, and that's why I don't want to say a word about the PM's decision to go to a hearing. Clearly, they have their considerations and hold on them that they know their craft and do not disclose beyond what should be disclosed. The hearing process is a procedure that must be followed very carefully. ".
Regarding the prime minister's deal with the hearing process and the fear that this procedure will be conducted in a manner or one that does not take into account the defense's arguments, Adv. Lenchner says: "Netanyahu thought of a creative solution that I very much liked, despite the mockery he received – the door hearing Open to the public to hear Netanyahu's arguments and see how the attorneys react, see who the people are making the decisions, based on what they made the decision, how attentive they were and how much they tried to understand the other side. " .