We promised you an update, so here it is.
Attys. Michael Sfard and Emily Schaeffer, who represent the parents of Tristan Anderson – who was shot and severely wounded in Nialin in 2009 – argued on Wednesday, on behalf of Yesh Din, in the High Court of Justice that the Samaria and Judea (SHAI) district police should re-investigate the case. This, given the series of investigation failures noted in the post linked above; briefly, the cops failed to investigate the unit members who were probably responsible for the shooting, and did not even visit the scene.
The State’s counsel claimed there was no point in re-opening the case, and the justices posed him some tough questions. Following a debate, and after examining the evidence we presented, the justices made it clear to the State that it ought to reconsider its position. The State’s counsel consulted his superiors, and upon return said the State agrees to re-opening the case. He qualified this change by saying the State believes there is “small likelihood” of an indictment. Earlier, he argued that there is no point in an investigation, given that the likelihood of an indictment is small.
That is, the State considers the situation where a person is shot – by men it armed – through no fault of his, and the fact that the guilty evade capture, to be tolerable. This concept is in contradiction to hundreds of years of jurisprudence, beginning with the office of the coroner as established by Henry II. The coroner was to examine every death, so as to make certain that the King’s officials did not murder his subjects. Henry II, it may interest the government to know, expired in 1189. Is that where you want to take us?
The justices were underwhelmed by the State’s arguments, and ordered it to begin an investigation. We have to turn over the evidence we have to the State within 15 days (think for a moment about the irony and role-reversal in this sentence), and the government is obliged to report on the advancement of the investigation within 120 days. We’ll keep you posted.