Filing a complaint with the police – in which cases will it not constitute grounds for a lawsuit?

The Defamation Law determines in which cases a defamation lawsuit can be filed, And I have written about this extensively in the past.The two main conditions are that the offensive publication must comply with the provisions of the Defamation Law, and that the publication must reach For many (A wider distribution will usually result in higher financial compensation.) Filing a complaint with the police may indeed meet these conditions.

Filing a complaint with the police is accorded special status both by virtue of the Defamation Law and by virtue of court rulings. However, if it becomes clear during the legal process that the defendant filed a false complaint with the police, he may pay significant financial compensation to the victim.

Protection from filing a police complaint under the Defamation Law

Section 15(8) of the Defamation Law states:

The publication was made by filing a complaint about the injured party in a matter where the person to whom the complaint was filed is in charge of the injured party, by virtue of law or contract, or a complaint filed with the authority authorized to receive complaints about the injured party or to investigate the matter that is the subject of the complaint; however, this provision does not provide protection for other publication of the complaint, the fact that it was filed, or its content.

Filing a complaint is usually (but not always) protected by this section, because filing a complaint with the police constitutes filing a complaint with the authority authorized to investigate the matter for which the complaint is filed.

Please note two important issues in this regard:

1. This protection shall not apply when it concerns: Filing a false complaint To the police. A false complaint, when there is no dispute that the complainant knew that it was untrue, negates the complainant's good faith. In other words, when a false complaint is filed with the police, a defamation lawsuit can be filed.

2. Note the end of Section 15(8) of the Defamation Law. Filing a complaint is protected by this section, but if the complainant publicly publishes the complaint, its contents, or the fact that it was filed, the protection of the section will not apply, and the publisher will be exposed to a defamation lawsuit.

Of course, there are many other defenses that can be used to fend off a defamation claim.

Protection for filing a police complaint by virtue of a court ruling

לאחרונה ניתן פסק דין מעניין של בית המשפט המחוזי אשר דן בערעור על פסק דינו של בית משפט השלום (ע"א 16257-05-19 יהודה אבירם נ' רן לוין ואח', פסק דין מיום 7.4.2020).

In this case, a motorcycle was stolen with a new checkbook (both belonging to the same person). After some time, the owner of the motorcycle contacted lawyer אשר ייצג אדם אחר, אשר החזיק באחד מהצ'קים (על סך 9000 ש"ח) ודרש את פרעונו.

The motorcycle owner made it clear to the lawyer that the checks were stolen and that he did not intend to cash the check. The lawyer attempted to collect the amount of the check through enforcement proceedings. As a result, the motorcycle owner filed a complaint with the police and another complaint with the Bar Association. In the complaints, the motorcycle owner accused the lawyer and his client of using a forged document and possessing stolen property.

As part of the appeal, the question arose as to whether filing a complaint with the police in this case constitutes defamation, and also whether the law of filing a complaint with the police is the same as filing a complaint with the Bar Association.

In this matter, the District Court ruled as follows (note the reference to the issue of good faith):

In my opinion, and thus I rule, a referral to the police with suspicion that Russo and his lawyer's insistence on cashing the check, even though they should have known that it was stolen, is a referral that should not be included in the torts of defamation. Since this is a complaint to a competent authority that is confident in verifying the details, it makes sense that we will not require the complainant to meet a high standard of certainty; both with regard to the complaint itself and with regard to the letter of reply sent to the competent authority.

נוכל אפוא לקבוע כי משלוח מכתב התשובה למשטרה – המצטרף כאמור לתלונה שהוגשה כחודש מוקדם יותר – נעשה בתום לב, גם לפי המבחן האובייקטיבי: אין מדובר ב"חזרה עיקשת וחסרת בסיס על תלונה שהוכחה כבר כמוטעית"; המערער לא הפריז "בדיווחו למשטרה הפרזה רבה בתיאור חשדותיו עד כדי שלילת תום-לבו"; וכמו כן, המדובר הוא ב"חשד סביר" בהתאם לנסיבות בהן מתעלמים המשיבים מגניבת הפנקס, וחשדם איננו מתעורר לאור תפקידו של צד ג' בהמצאת השיק למשיב 2 ומהעובדה שהשיק נעדר חתימת הסבה.

It is clear that my conclusion will not change even if we assume that Respondent 2's disregard of the appellant's warnings regarding the theft of the checkbook does not exceed the range of reasonableness, according to what is customary in a lawyer's daily routine (see, for example: Pat. p. 5, Q. 16-35; p. 10, Q. 32 – p. 11, Q. 24 [in the preliminary proceedings]); since our concern is with the reasonableness of the appellant's conduct, which does not necessarily depend on the reasonableness of Respondent 2's conduct.

Filing a complaint with the Bar Association

In this case, the District Court ruled that filing a complaint with the Bar Association is not the same as filing a complaint with the police, and that in this case it is defamation that entitles to financial compensation:

I believe that Aviram did slander Levin in his application to the Bar Association. The Bar Association does not have the authority to investigate suspicions. A suspicion that Russo is involved in the theft transaction, without any evidentiary basis (and indeed: the trial court ruled that it does not believe Aviram because the police raised such a suspicion before it) is unfounded, and certainly not sufficient to file a complaint against his lawyer as being involved in the theft of the vehicle.

It is important to emphasize that in other cases, filing a complaint with the Bar Association was protected and the defendants were not required to pay financial compensation, and therefore each case must be examined on its merits.

In conclusion

Filing a complaint with the police is intended to protect citizens from criminal offenses and not as a tool to target innocent citizens. Anyone can file a complaint with the police at any time, and the police are obligated to accept the complaint. This issue is sometimes abused, and many people file false complaints because they know that the police may investigate the matter, summon the person against whom the complaint was filed, and in extreme cases even take criminal proceedings against him.

Filing false complaints is especially common during divorce proceedings, when the woman (sometimes on the advice of her lawyer) files countless false complaints with the police.

Filing a police complaint can be considered defamation in court and lead to very high financial compensation. However, one must be familiar with the protections provided in the Defamation Law and in court rulings regarding false police complaints. These are not simple claims and judges are not always quick to award financial compensation.

In order to receive significant financial compensation, it is necessary to prove in court that the complainant knew in advance that the complaint was false, thus negating his good faith and depriving him of the protection provided by law.

Frequently Asked Questions About Filing a Police Complaint