Prosecution asks court to provide Shin Bet opinion said to support Netanyahu trial delay

In the filing, prosecutors said they had not received any Shin Bet opinion, had not been notified that such a document would be submitted, and were left to piece together the matter from media reports and a court-administration notice. They argued that if material bearing on Netanyahu’s ability to testify was indeed placed before the judges, it should also have been made available to the prosecution through officials with the necessary security clearance.

The request followed a weekend Channel 13 report that a classified Shin Bet opinion had been attached, or separately conveyed, in connection with Netanyahu’s bid to cancel this week’s and next week’s hearings. According to the report, the opinion stated that the prime minister could not testify during the current period out of concern for his life, on the grounds that a scheduled court appearance creates a known and predictable target.

The prosecution detailed that a Shin Bet document was passed to the court through Courts Administration legal adviser Barak Leizer, and that this was not disclosed to the prosecution beforehand.

That issue lies at the center of the prosecution’s complaint. In its filing, it stressed that while it had agreed to cancel Netanyahu’s testimony for this week, that consent was based on a different professional opinion submitted by the defense regarding recent events in Israel, not on any Shin Bet document concerning the prime minister’s personal security.

Prosecutors argued that any material presented to the court that could bear on the future conduct of the proceedings, and not merely on logistical questions such as venue, had to be disclosed to the other side in advance, at least to officials with the appropriate security clearance.

The prosecution also asked the court to make explicit what it described as the obvious procedural rule: that documents submitted to the bench in connection with requests to cancel hearings, “and in general,” must be brought to the prosecution’s attention ahead of time. The filing suggests the state’s concern is not only the contents of the reported opinion, but also the way it was handled and whether the court relied on material the prosecution had no opportunity to address.

The immediate backdrop is Netanyahu’s request, filed after Israel lifted emergency wartime restrictions following the ceasefire with Iran, to cancel two weeks of testimony because of sensitive security and diplomatic developments. On Sunday, the court partially granted that request, canceling this week’s hearings while ordering Netanyahu’s defense to update the judges on Thursday as to whether the same circumstances justified canceling next week’s sessions as well.

The underlying Channel 13 report added a further layer of controversy by saying the request for the Shin Bet opinion came from Netanyahu’s close circle and that the opinion was issued on the direct instruction of Shin Bet chief David Zini. Subsequent Channel 13 reporting said Justice Ministry officials were examining the handling of the matter, while criticism was voiced within the security establishment over the need for such an opinion given the protected setting in which the testimony has been held. The testimony venue is a protected space on a lower floor of the Tel Aviv District Court complex, where Netanyahu’s testimony has taken place for security reasons even though the case itself is being heard by the Jerusalem District Court panel.

The prosecution is not asking the court to reverse its decision canceling this week’s hearings. Rather, it is drawing a line around process: if the defense, the Shin Bet, or court officials place before the judges material that could affect whether and when the prime minister testifies, the prosecution says it must be allowed to review that material through cleared personnel and respond accordingly.