X hits on this document





34 / 38

agreed with Director of the Police in a final, non-appealable decision of 24.2.2010.


The Director of Public Prosecution gave his final decision on the first complaint on 13 Aug. 2009. The Director in his final and non-appealable decision refused to consider the substance of the case, since he found that neither the DACoRD nor the Jewish Community was entitled to appeal. In the individual complaint DACoRD had noted that the complainant as a Jew was entitled to complain since there was a threat against “all Jews”. The Director of Public Prosecution on 18 Feb. 2010 again refused to right of the individual applicant to appeal. In making that decision he stated that weight should be attached to strength of the complainant’s interest in the case and its result. Persons who report a crime or are witnesses are only accorded status as a part in a criminal case, if there is a direct, individual and legal interest in the outcome of the case. In the case in point the Director of Public Prosecution found that the “statements about Jews are of general character and concerns a large and indefinite number of persons” and that there was no information that the complainant “should have a special interest in the outcome of the case compared to other persons of the group targeted by the statements which had been set forth during the demonstration on 10. January 2009.”


In the first group complaint the reasons given by the Director of Public Prosecution were that he did not find that neither DACoRD as an interest organisation not the Jewish Community as a [publicly recognized] religious community could be considered entitled to complain. Under normal practice interest organisations, associations or persons, which handles or represents the rights of others, groups or general public interests on an ideal or organisational, work-related or similar basis cannot normally be considered parties to a criminal case: “I do not find that there is information on the interest of DACORD or the Jewish Community in the present case, which provides reason to deviate from this point of departure”.


On 20 April 2010 the prosecution authority of the Copenhagen Police served a 3rd decision regarding the same incident at the demonstration on 10 Jan. 2009 – and it was again stated that the investigation may be reopened if it should later on be possible to identify the persons responsible for the statements. DACoRD subsequently on two occasions asked for further identification of whom the decision referred to and citing the two decisions above. On 21 June the Police replied that it was unable to identify the case in which it had made the decision – because the case file had been mislaid both at the Copenhagen Police and at the Regional Public Prosecutor.


A further new development came in a letter of 22 June 2010 from the Parliamentary Ombudsmand [Folketingets Ombudsmand]. DACoRD had submitted the two refusals by the Director of Public Prosecutions over the two decisions to discontinue investigations in the case. The Ombudsmand had decided not make any inquiries into the case, since he did not se any likelihood of criticising the Director of Public Prosecutiuons on the basis of administrative law. The Ombudsmand subsequently addressed the question of the status and application of international law:

 “In relation to the reference by DACoRD to international rules, there is in my view no coincidence between the concept of a ‘party’ in administrative law which lies at heart in the right to complain in Section 99 § 3 of the Administration of Justice Act and the right of petition in relation to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination which is established according to the UN Convention on Racial Discrimination (CERD).

Document info
Document views55
Page views55
Page last viewedSat Oct 22 00:08:25 UTC 2016