Attorney Amit Haddad's appeal to the High Court of Justice on behalf of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's advisor Yonatan Urich on Friday morning against the Petah Tikva District Court's decision to extend Urich's detention by five days was rejected by Judge Yechiel Kasher.
"After reviewing the material and hearing the parties, the appeal is denied. If continued detention is required, an additional justification will be needed, and not necessarily in the context of the danger grounds. Detailed reasoning will be provided at a later stage," Kasher said.
Urich will remain in custody until Monday.
Urich, one of the main suspects in the ongoing "Qatargate" investigation along with Eli Feldstein, was detained on Wednesday night and was released on Thursday, but the decision to release him was overturned later on Thursday night.
Israeli judge Yechiel Meir Kasher reportedly said: "After reviewing the material and hearing the parties, the appeal is rejected. To the extent that further detention is required, additional grounds will be required. And not specifically in the context of the dangerousness grounds. Detailed reasons will be given at a later stage," Walla reported.
"Qatar is not an enemy state, senior officials in the security system work with Qatar," the appeal argues. During a hearing on Urich's case on Thursday night, it was determined that "the reasonable suspicion against the respondents has significantly strengthened, especially in Urich's case."
Urich's story has changed, a source told Walla. Urich initially claimed not to have known any Qataris, but later admitted working with them during the Qatar 2022 World Cup, and even after the October 7 Massacre, the source stated.
The judge rules that lower court erred in not addressing danger
Lod District Court Judge Amit Michles, who accepted the police’s appeal and determined that Urich’s arrest is to be extended, wrote in his ruling that "At the time of today's hearing, the various considerations that led the investigating unit to decide to detain Urich were presented to me."
"The court must balance, in each case, the severity of the harm and the public interest, with the primary concern being the detention of the respondent," said the judge. "According to the applicant's claim, the lower court erred in not addressing the claim of danger."