Israeli Judicial Commissioner Rules Judges May Use Children's Literature in Verdicts

The Public Complaints Commissioner for Judges in Israel, retired Judge Asher Coheleth, ruled that judges are permitted to reference children’s literature in their rulings. This decision came after a complaint was filed against a magistrate judge who compared the conduct of a plaintiff’s lawsuit to a children’s story in his judgment. The complainant argued that the judge’s writing style and use of metaphors were mocking and disrespectful. However, Coheleth stated that judges sometimes use literary and poetic references, including children’s literature, as a way to communicate their impressions and reasoning to the parties involved. He emphasized that judicial expression is part of a judge’s independence and must be protected unless it clearly harms an individual, which was not the case here.

The specific case involved a magistrate quoting from the children’s book "Ayelet Goes Hiking" by Rinat Hooper, drawing parallels between the story’s events and the management of the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The judge clarified that the literary reference was not intended to ridicule but to illustrate the legal analysis and the detrimental effect of the plaintiff’s procedural approach. Nonetheless, the judge expressed regret over the complainant’s feelings and committed to limiting future use of such quotes to purely legal or factual explanations.

In a separate precedent-setting ruling, Commissioner Coheleth addressed a complaint about a judge allowing testimony via WhatsApp video call during a civil trial. The complainant claimed this violated the defendant’s right to argument and that the testimony was conducted improperly. The judge had permitted the plaintiff’s witness to testify remotely due to the defendant’s failure to bring their own witness to a preliminary hearing. The commissioner upheld the judge’s decision, noting that remote testimony by video call is an accepted practice in vehicle claims when parties consent and technical issues prevent in-person attendance. He stressed the court’s responsibility to ensure all parties can see and hear the witness and that the trial’s public nature is preserved despite technological limitations.