Danish Criminal Procedure – Notes

Return to front page


1) Jørgensen p. 18, Henrik Tamm Rpl.50 p. 11.

2) Henrik Tamm in Rpl.50 p. 31ff.

3) 1899-udk. col. 315.

4) Martin Spencer uses the term lenient imprisonment.

5) Gammeltoft Hansen in Danish Law a General Survey uses court of Revision.

6) Harbou in Rpl.50 p. 281 ff. particularly 283 and Bet.1115 side 55.

7) Based on entries in the latest edition of the equivalent of Who’s who, called Kraks Blå Bog.

8) In general see Bet.994.

9) The information is entirely based on my impressions from acquaintances who have served on selection committees. It cannot be confirmed with any official sources, as the selection proces is surrounded by extensive secrecy, nor can it be disproved.

10) Other translations are State Prosecutor, or District Attorney.

11) UfR 1982.800 H, part of Bonde Nielsen’s case.

12) Hurwitz p. 461.

13) Eyben p. 119 mentions same problem, but at least he had access to decisions from the Court of Complaint.

14) Koktvedgaard barely mentions evidence, Eva Smith gives it some consideration.

15) Trolle is the prime example.

16) Lrs. Erik Rasmussen in review of Koktvedgaard, UfR 1978 B 360, Smith: Vidnebeviset p. 344 refering Trolle 1st edition.

17) Available in English as: The Danish Laws or the Code of Christian the Fifth faitfully translated for the use of the English inhabitants of the Danish settlements in America, printed for N Gibson, London 1756. This edition does not include the 2nd book on the church.

Sections in the DL are called articles and referred to by 3 digits referring to book, chapter, and article and pronounced as ordinals.

18) This section is mainly based on Lene Ravn: Indiciebevi­sets udvikling i dansk strafferetspleje, UfR 1980 B 13. Unfortunately this fine article is wrongly indexed in Jens Søndergaard: Dansk Juridisk Bibliografi 1980-84. See also Zahle p.96 on the full proof concept. For information on inquisitorial procedure see E.A. Abitz in Rpl.50 p. 133, on abuses of it see Tamm in Rpl.50 p.14.

19) In continuation of this Knud Waaben: Strafferettens Specielle Del, p. 311 argues that perjury is committed when the witness is discharged after examination. See also 1899- udk. col. 386.

20) Hauschildt’s case, judgment May 24th 1989.

21) I believe similar clauses may be found in the laws of criminal procedure in most continental countries and certainly in France.

22) The term appears to be a translation from German.

23) Supplemented by the same author in Strafferettens Ansvarslære p. 110

24) It is generally accepted that certain provisions of the Danish Law remain in force, e.g. the rules on the immunity of the members of the Royal Family.

Equally, the ecclesiastical courts are still governed by the rules of the Danish Law in so far as their composition is concerned, though probably nobody realises that they are also bound by the Danish Law’s provisions on evidence, because they are specifically excempt from the Administration of Justice Act! The problem of course is that while everybody agrees that ecclesiastical courts ought to be reformed, they are so insignificant that no one cares to spend their time on it.

25) Eva Smith p. 134, Koktvedgaard p. 49, Trolle p. 18, and Eyben p. 115, but Hurwitz p. 470 and Trolle p.36 actually lays a burden of proof for general defences on the defence.

26) Eyben p. 117 and 210.

27) Smith p. 134, Gomard-civil p. 326, Eyben p. 24.

28) For an instance in English law see The Times, December 4th 1989 p. 3, Kenneth Cain’s case (acquitted of rape, but held liable in civil courts).

29) Trolle p. 35, Eyben 115.

30) Zweigert and Katz: An introduction to comparative law p. 284, 3rd edition Oxford University Press, 1988.

31) Zahle p. 654.

32) UfR 1979.912 V

33) UfR 1969.346 H

34) Susanne Bjørklund’s case: UfR 1987.22 H

35) UfR 1982,1027 H

36) Possibly Trolle p. 53 and Smith: Vidnebeviset, chapter 14.

37) Waaben p. 315. It is debatable whether the exemption includes instances where the accused throws the blame on somebody else.

39) Waaben p. 318.

40) UfR 1972.294 H not extended to procurer and 1976.754 V mitigating circumstances for accessory.

41) Extreme caution will probably follow after a widely publicized case where evidence of the victim’s later sexual conduct led to an acquittal at a retrial, which in light of later convictions looks dubious. See: UfR 1981.802 H conviction for rape (later quashed by unreported decision) and 1986.36 H conviction for rape, robberies, and double murder, cf. Eyben p. 152.

Likewise procurement of psychiatric reports on the credibility of a witness is normally denied, but existing reports may be admitted and previous convictions disclosed. See UfR 1969.491 0, 1983.:00 0 and orders mentioned in Komm. Rpl. at § 185.

42) 1899-udk. col. 399.

43) Trolle p. 85.

44) UfR 1985.312 K, Eyben 137, the case is the only retrial of murder resulting in re-conviction.

45) Hurwitz p. 468.

46) UfR 1978.988 V.

47) Koktvedgaard p. 313 apparently opposite

48) 1899-udk. col. 522.

49) The only application in the period from 1970 to 1979 was in the case mentioned in note 51 and that was refused.

50) 1899-udk. col 522 says no, UfR 1950.108 K says yes, but the Town Court dismissed, see Juristens Domssamling 1948 p. 272.

51) UfR 1950.107 K.

52) UfR 1972.269 Ø, but conversely Court of Complaint case 41/1976, see Blom Andersen in UfR 1981 B 13.

53) Hurwitz p. 328, Gammeltoft vol 1, p. 119.

54) 1899-udk. col. 520.

Next Chapter