Hop til indhold
Supreme Court of Denmark

Punishment for violation of reporting duty 
18-02-2020 

Case no. 161/2019
 

Judgment delivered on 18 February 2020


The Prosecution Service
vs.
T


Reporting duty imposed on a criminal expelled alien was not disproportionate

In April 2013, T was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment with a permanent entry ban for violation of, among other things, the provisions in the Danish Penal Code on possession of drugs and brothel operation. When she was released on parole in March 2014, she was ordered to reside at the accommodation centre Center Sandholm in North Zealand and to report to the police there once a week. In February 2017, the Danish Immigration Service decided that she should instead reside at Departure Centre Kærshovedgård in Ikast, and the police ordered her to report to them at Kærshovedgård every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between the hours of 10 and 12 noon. However, T stayed with her family in the Copenhagen area.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether T could be punished for 155 counts of violation of the reporting duty at Kærshovedgård from February 2017 to February 2018. T claimed that she should not be punished for these violations, as the reporting duty was disproportionate.

The Supreme Court was satisfied that the duty to report to the police at Kærshovedgård in the relevant period, from February 2017 to February 2018, did not amount to a disproportionate restriction of T’s right to respect for private and family life, cf. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Among other things, the Supreme Court gave importance to the seriousness of the offences for which she was expelled, and that the Danish authorities had been in contact with the Vietnamese authorities to discuss the issue of expulsion of T several times both before and during the period concerned, and that T, who had not left Denmark voluntarily, did not wish to cooperate in the efforts to return her to Vietnam. There was no basis for setting aside the police’s assessment that it had not exhausted all avenues for returning T to Vietnam during the period concerned, as it needed additional information from T on her ties to Vietnam.

The High Court had reached the same conclusion. 

To the top Last modified: 21-02-2020 
supremecourtseperatorPrins Jørgens Gård 13 seperator1218 København K seperatorTelefon: 33632750seperatorEmail: post@hoejesteret.dk