“We had never jumped fences before”: The city, the woman, and the drifter in the Yaakobowitz case

Abstract

After considering the material before me, I have formed the opinion that it shall be permitted for the petitioner to examine the file under scrutiny. Deliberation on the case did not take place behind closed doors and there is no lawful prohibition to the examination…in addition I accept the position of the respondent, according to which in spite of the fact that a large portion of the details of the affair were published in the judgment…the file contains material whose revelation can cause unnecessary harm to the central witness…the examination considered will be contingent on an undertaking in writing…according to which the petitioner will not publicize anything that will damage the privacy of the victims and their families beyond the damage that already occurred by the court judgment. (Decision of magistrate Yigaal Marzel, 2006 in the matter of C.A 125/50 Yaakobowitz v. Attorney General)

Citation

Bilsky, L. (2009), "“We had never jumped fences before”: The city, the woman, and the drifter in the Yaakobowitz case", Sarat, A. (Ed.) Studies in Law, Politics and Society (Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, Vol. 49), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 57-96. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1059-4337(2009)0000049006