"No longer suitable for our reality": Dorit Beinisch calls for a judicial system revolution

Former Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch proposes a structural change in the court system: "The structure where everything drains into the Supreme Court is no longer suitable for our reality," she said. "It would be correct for all the thousands of civil and criminal appeals, which are mostly related to facts and not always to principled questions, to reach an appellate instance, and only cases in which principled questions arise would reach the Supreme Court."

Supreme Court justices effectively act in two capacities: as an appellate instance for decisions of lower courts, and also as the High Court of Justice (Bagatz) – which deals with principled issues, constitutional petitions, oversight of state authorities, legislation, and more.

Beinisch calls for the establishment of an additional appellate instance in Israel between the district courts and the Supreme Court, as part of a comprehensive structural change in the judicial system. In a conversation on the "Management Principles" podcast of Tel Aviv 360, the podcast channel of Tel Aviv University, Beinisch said that the move would allow for a significant reduction in the burden placed on the Supreme Court and focus a larger part of its work on principled legal issues.

She explained that today, thousands of civil and criminal appeals reach the Supreme Court, a significant portion of which deals with factual clarification rather than principled legal questions. "In Israel, there are far fewer judges than is customary in OECD countries, and this creates an unbearable burden on the system. I believe it would be correct for all the thousands of civil and criminal appeals, which are mostly related to facts and not always to principled questions, to reach an appellate instance, and only cases in which principled questions arise would reach the Supreme Court," she said.

However, Beinisch clarified that she is not proposing to adopt a model where the Supreme Court hears only a few dozen cases a year. She mentioned that in the United States, the Supreme Court may hear only about 80 cases a year, and added: "I always said that I don't want 80 cases a year, because I think it is good that the court sees a broader picture of what is happening in Israeli society and handles more cases. Between 80 and 1,000, one can reach something reasonable."

According to her, exposure to cases arriving from lower instances allows the Supreme Court to identify systemic problems and better understand what is happening in the system. "When you see more cases, it helps you more to make decisions in principled cases, that way I see where there might be a problem, I see a complete picture of the situation."

Beinisch also pointed to complementary steps required in her view: increasing the number of judges and resources allocated to the system, removing procedures that do not require a judicial decision from the courts, and expanding the use of mediation and alternative administrative mechanisms. "For nearly 80 years, we have accepted a structure that was correct during the British Mandate period. We have changed many things, but perhaps not enough; we have not adapted it further, and there is something to adapt," she said.

In this context, Beinisch criticized the discourse surrounding the "judicial reform" and argued that it does not deal with the practical needs of the court system: "It is extremely important to maintain the independence of the judges and that they make decisions according to their professional judgment without being interfered with. Unfortunately, the leaders of the reform did not examine the needs of the system. They intended a regime reform, to shrink and close this system as much as possible."

The conversation took place as part of the "Management Principles" podcast, hosted by Prof. Carmit Tadmor and Prof. Yossi Spiegel from the Coller School of Management at Tel Aviv University. The podcast is from Tel Aviv 360, the podcast channel of Tel Aviv University.