Braverman appeals journey ban in ‘midnight assembly’ affair

In a submitting submitted Wednesday, Braverman’s attorneys requested that the courtroom intervene in a February 17 ruling by the Lod District Court that restored a sequence of limitations imposed as a part of an ongoing police probe into suspected security-related offenses, together with obstruction of justice and breach of belief.

According to the submitting, investigators suspect that through the late-night assembly, Braverman knowledgeable Feldstein of the existence of the probe, offered him with a listing of names, and advised that he might “turn it off.”

Police first opened an investigation into Braverman on January 11, 2026, following media reviews in late December that Feldstein had publicly described the assembly in an interview.

He was launched after questioning below a number of circumstances, together with a 30-day journey ban, restrictions on contact with different people related to the case, and an order barring him from coming into the Prime Minister’s Office compound and the Kirya.

A Justice of the Peace’s courtroom partially lifted these circumstances on January 15, cancelling each the journey ban and the office restrictions whereas narrowing the contact prohibition.

The courtroom discovered on the time that investigators had not acted with urgency following the publication of Feldstein’s account and that the prohibition on leaving Israel “was not relevant” to the investigative function cited by police.

That choice was overturned days later by the district courtroom, which reinstated the circumstances on the grounds that Braverman’s proximity to potential witnesses and senior officers posed a threat of interference with the investigation.

The courtroom additional held {that a} departure from Israel might impair his instant availability for questioning, and {that a} journey ban could also be imposed not solely to forestall flight from justice but additionally to deal with issues about obstruction of investigative proceedings.

In their attraction to the High Court, Braverman’s attorneys argue that the decrease courtroom erred in legislation by allowing a sweeping restriction on his motion absent concrete proof of any try to impede the investigation.

They contend that the journey ban – which they be aware has already prevented him from taking on his diplomatic posting in London – constitutes a disproportionate infringement on his constitutional rights to liberty, freedom of motion and freedom of occupation.

The attraction additionally places a broader authorized query earlier than the courtroom: whether or not judges weighing pre-trial restrictions can consider wider public pursuits – together with doable fallout for Israel’s international relations – and never simply the wants of the investigation itself.

According to the attraction, the district courtroom rejected the Justice of the Peace’s consideration of doable diplomatic fallout from Braverman’s incapability to imagine his ambassadorial duties, ruling that such components fall exterior the stability between investigative wants and particular person rights required below the legislation.

Braverman’s authorized crew disputes that interpretation, arguing that when a suspect has been formally appointed to a senior diplomatic position, a restriction that successfully blocks the success of that appointment carries institutional penalties past the person case.

The High Court has not but dominated on whether or not it is going to hear the attraction.