Supreme Court Delays Undermine Justice in Criminal Appeals
Translated & summarized from Arutz Sheva by baba
Israel's Supreme Court is experiencing significant delays in processing criminal appeals, with average times increasing to 11.8 months by 2026. This backlog means appellants may serve parts of their sentences before a decision, undermining the right to appeal. Attorney Dr. Liran Ohayon highlights that timely rulings are essential to prevent harm, not just acknowledge it later. The court faces a shortage of four justices, exacerbating the issue and prompting calls for greater transparency on served sentences versus final rulings.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Criminal appeals at Israel's Supreme Court now take an average of 11.8 months, up from 7.6 months in 2023.
- Delays mean appellants may serve part of their sentence before a decision, diminishing the appeal's effectiveness.
- The Supreme Court is operating with four fewer justices than its full complement of fifteen.
- Attorney Dr. Liran Ohayon stresses that timely decisions are vital to prevent harm, not just acknowledge it.
- Justice Gila Kenaf-Steinholtz explored advancing a hearing date, acknowledging existing mechanisms.
- Calls are made for publishing data on appellants who served time during pending appeals.
The time it takes for criminal appeals to be processed by Israel's Supreme Court has significantly increased, with the average duration rising from approximately 7.6 months in 2023 to 11.8 months by 2026. This delay means that individuals appealing prison sentences may have already served a portion of their time before a decision is reached, potentially diminishing the effectiveness of the appeal process in rectifying injustices or preventing harm.
Attorney Dr. Liran Ohayon explains that timely decisions are crucial for the right to appeal, especially when liberty is at stake. A delayed ruling, even if favorable, cannot restore lost time, income, or business continuity that may have been impacted by a prolonged sentence. The core issue is not just the waiting period but whether a decision comes in time to prevent damage or only to acknowledge it after it has occurred.
The Supreme Court is currently operating with four fewer justices than its full complement of fifteen. This shortage contributes to the backlog, affecting even cases with short prison sentences, which are now being heard very close to the end of the sentence's term. The article emphasizes that the crucial metric is not merely how long a case stays in the system, but how much of a sentence might be served before a resolution.
While the legal system recognizes the risk of delayed justice, as seen in the Schwartz ruling which suggested suspending sentences for short terms to ensure effective appeals, solutions are not always implemented. In one instance on June 17, 2026, Justice Gila Kenaf-Steinholtz denied a request to delay a sentence but asked the court clerk to explore advancing the hearing date, acknowledging the existing tools and considerations.
Ohayon suggests that alongside overall processing times, the court should publish aggregated data on appellants who served time while their appeals were pending, particularly noting cases where the reduced sentence was less than the time already served. This transparency would help identify instances where decisions arrived too late to prevent harm, though it must be balanced with the needs of victims and urgent non-criminal cases.