Defense argues police exceeded approved scope in Netanyahu trial

Former attorney-general Avichai Mandelblit took the stand at the Jerusalem District Court on Monday to clarify the boundaries of police power during the probe of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu’s lawyer, Amit Hadad, focused on whether investigators stayed within the specific permissions Mandelblit granted. The defense is testing if the police required additional consent for certain actions taken during the preliminary examination that evolved into Case 1000.

The questioning centered on interviews with Hadas Klein, an assistant to businessman Arnon Milchan, and Yonatan Hasson, a driver for James Packer. Hadad suggested these steps went beyond what the former chief prosecutor had authorized. Mandelblit countered that his initial approval covered a wide range of suspicions regarding substantial benefits Netanyahu allegedly received from these business figures.

Mandelblit explained that his standing permission meant detectives did not need to seek his sign-off for every individual action. He stated that the subject matter defined the limits, while major developments would trigger the need for further consultation with him.

Earlier testimony revealed Mandelblit’s stricter stance on surveillance. He said he ordered police to halt wiretapping Natan Eshel, a close aide to Netanyahu, after learning of the operation. Although investigators held a court warrant, Mandelblit argued that monitoring someone so central to the prime minister's personal and political life was sensitive enough to warrant prior approval from him.

Judge Moshe Bar-Am inquired how investigators could distinguish between steps covered by general authorization and those requiring specific consent. Mandelblit reiterated that the scope of the approved subject matter set the boundary for the initial phase of the investigation.

The trial, which began in May 2020, involves three cases concerning alleged gifts and media dealings. Netanyahu faces fraud and breach of trust charges in all three, with an additional bribery count in Case 4000 related to alleged benefits for Bezeq in exchange for favorable coverage from Walla. He denies all wrongdoing.