Judgment delivered on 22 March 2018
The Prosecution Service
Cambodian citizen expelled with a permanent entry ban after having committed rape
T had been sentenced to four years in prison for, among other things, rape. The issue before the Supreme Court only concerned expulsion.
The conditions in the Danish Aliens Act were fulfilled, and T thus faced expulsion unless it would be in contravention of Denmark's international obligations. Consequently, the question was whether expulsion would be contrary to Article 8 of the European Human Rights Convention on the right to respect for private and family life. This was to be decided based on a proportionality assessment according to the criteria laid down by the European Court of Human Rights in expulsion cases.
T was a now 36-year-old Cambodian citizen. He came to Denmark when he was six years old and had lived here since. This meant that there had to be compelling reasons for expelling T. T had been convicted for rape twice before, in which connection he was sentenced to suspended expulsion from Denmark. The two latest attacks had been committed during the probation period. The Supreme Court assessed that there was a significant risk that T would continue committing serious assaults in Denmark if he was not expelled. He was not married or in a cohabiting relationship, but he had two minor children, with whom he had only limited and sporadic contact. His parents and his three siblings also lived in Denmark. He had attended school in Denmark and had worked different jobs. He had never been back in Cambodia, but the Supreme Court based its decision on the fact that he was able to speak some Cambodian and had some knowledge of Cambodian custom and culture through his family and Cambodian friends in Denmark.
Based on an overall assessment, the Supreme Court held that the expulsion of T did not amount to a disproportionate restriction in contravention of the European Human Rights Convention, and that it was not a disproportionate measure to expel him with a permanent entry ban.
The High Court had reached a different conclusion.